According to the United States Supreme Court, Obama is ineligible to be the President. That’s right, you read that correctly. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is ineligible to serve as President.
It’s not that you haven’t been paying attention lately and yes, you can be excused for missing the ruling as it came down, not in the last few days but back in 1875.
This is the argument currently being made by the Liberty Legal Foundation.
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed not 1 but 2 lawsuits, one in Arizona and the other in Tennessee neither of which have one single thing to do with Obama’s birth certificate OR challenging whether or not Obama was born in the United States.
There is no need for either in regard to these lawsuits.
At the core of this action is a simple request that Federal courts uphold the Supreme Court ruling. Both lawsuits, and the Liberty Legal Foundation promises there will be more, would render it impossible for the Democratic National Committee to place Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.
Here’s the crux of it.
Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:
“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
Obama’s problem, by his own admission and records of the State Department is this:
Obama’s father was not a United States citizen.
Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.
For a person to run, as his or her party’s nominee for President, the party must issue certification that the person named is eligible under the United States Constitution to become President.
Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen.
Bring this up to your liberal friends and they will laugh at you and
call you a right wing nut job for saying Obama is ineligible but 
the
quick and accurate response is clear. YOU are not saying this, and
neither is the Liberty Legal Foundation. Obama is ineligible so sayeth
the United States Supreme Court and if they care to attempt to label the
United States Supreme Court of 1875 as right wing nut jobs…so be it and
good luck with that.
If the Democratic Party should certify Obama, in the face of this ruling, they would be acting in a fraudulent manner and according to the actions being brought by the Liberty Legal Foundation, it is the political parties which are solely responsible for that certification and the Liberty Legal Foundation intends to hold BOTH parties accountable.
To be specific, the case of Minor v. Happersett was not intended as to solve the question of Presidential eligibility at all. That case was in regard to a woman’s right to vote and while the case itself didn’t draw this specific issue into question, the Chief Justice, Morrison Waite, did, in fact address it in the issuing of the Supreme Court’s decision.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be
natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born
in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon
their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born
citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities
go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction
without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents.
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For
the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It
is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children
born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in
this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the
last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is
not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon
that idea.”
No doubt, liberals will attempt to cling to this line:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents.”
Note that the Chief Justice Waite follows that with:
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
In this, the Chief Justice, and therefore, the Supreme Court makes clear that the one definition to which there is no doubt is:
“…that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
Indeed, there are 4 cases in which the United States Supreme Court has addressed “Natural Born Citizen.
1) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
2) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
“Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”
3) Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
4) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Clearly, by any of the 4 cases in which the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of “Natural Born Citizen” Obama, by the opinions rendered, is not one.
If Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is therefore ineligible to run for or to serve as, the President.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution 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; neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United
States.”
As the Constitution offers no definition of “Natural Born Citizen” it falls to the United States Supreme Court and the 4 cases in which the Supreme Court provides such a definition appear above.
Forget the birth certificate or swirling questions as to his place of birth, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear.
Obama is not eligible to serve as President and should his name appear on ballots in 2012, it will appear there fraudulently.
______________________________________________
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?
Posted: November 23, 2010
9:45 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
U.S. President Barack Obama listens to remarks by Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev during their meeting at the APEC Summit in Yokohama, November 14, 2010. REUTERS/Jim Young (JAPAN - Tags: POLITICS)
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Mario Apuzzo
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.
_______________________________________________
Please do not be disappointed by the news you are about to read. It is a set-back, but only a minor and temporary one. Please read this entire message.
Our hearing, scheduled for this Friday has been canceled. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has dismissed our case without a hearing. It ruled that over 25,000 American citizens have no right to challenge the Constitutionality of Obamacare. The most stunning part of this ruling was the reasoning of the court. It ignored recent rulings from other Federal District Courts in Michigan and Virginia. Those Courts both ruled that most Americans have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of Obamacare. The Tennessee court ignored their rulings and concluded that none of the 25,000 named plaintiffs could possibly prove that they are being personally injured by Obamacare. This ruling is, of course, absurd. It is also an insult to common sense, an insult to the rules of civil procedure, and an insult to the rule of law.
Now for the good news: This is just a temporary delay in our battle. Because the Tennessee Court based its dismissal on a supposed lack of standing, we can refile our case with a court that has a good Constitutional track record. Since we are a nationwide class action, we can refile anywhere in the U.S. and will do so as soon as possible. In anticipation of the TN court’s decision, we have been intensively researching Federal District Courts across the country. Liberty Legal Foundation has many friends within the Constitutional law/Patriot movements. We’re actively consulting with all of them in order to identify the best Federal District Court in which to re-file our lawsuit. We have identified several Federal Court judges that are likely to follow the Constitution in this case. You are all part of this process. We would appreciate any research, contacts, and input you all have regarding re-filing our case.
Many of you may ask why we aren’t appealing our dismissal. We certainly have that right. However, doing so would delay our battle unnecessarily. As explained above, we don’t have to appeal because we can re-file in a better court. More importantly, winning an appeal at this point would simply return us to the same District Court that just dismissed us. You see, the Tennessee Court’s absurd ruling did not address the commerce clause question that we presented. We believe that the Tennessee court’s avoidance of the commerce clause issue was intentional and based upon political or personal motives. If the court had ruled regarding the commerce clause question we could have appealed to the Circuit Court and then to the Supreme Court. Instead the Tennessee court choose to address a purely procedural issue. Because of this, the best result we could hope for from an appeal would be to return to the Tennessee District Court for further absurd rulings. So, if we appealed and won, we would still be no closer to getting a ruling about the commerce clause, and we would have lost at least a year in litigating the appeal.
It is important to remember that the OCA is attempting to reverse 68 years of bad Supreme Court precedent. All the other lawsuits challenge pieces of Obamacare. Their goal is to eliminate Obamacare. Our goal is to eliminate Obamacare AND restore Constitutional limitations on Congressional power. Ours is the only lawsuit that seeks to restore the original meaning of the commerce clause. If successful the OCA will return the limits on Congress that existed prior to 1942. The 1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling is greatly responsible for the explosive growth of the Federal government over the past 68 years. That is why we must continue our fight. We are the only lawsuit that directly attacks this flawed legal precedent.
Since we filed our lawsuit last April several other groups, including the Virginia Attorney General, have raised the commerce clause arguments in their anti-Obamacare lawsuits. We are very glad to see this. It means that we are raising the country’s awareness of this issue. However, it is important to remember that all of the other groups are raising the commerce clause issue as an afterthought. None of the other lawsuits are focusing on this issue. None of them are likely to cause the reversal of this Supreme Court precedent, because none of the other groups are actively arguing for such reversal. The OCA is unique because its goal from the beginning has been to overturn the FDR-Supreme Court’s commerce clause precedent as well as overturn Obamacare.
We will continue this fight until we win. We can never give up and never surrender to those who seek to destroy our God given and Constitutionally protected freedom!
In Liberty,
Dawn Irion, Co-Founder
Liberty Legal Foundation
dawn@libertylegalfoundation.com
P.S. Please do not be disappointed at this delay. Our fight is to restore the Constitutional limitations placed upon Congress by overturning the legal precedent that allowed Obamacare to be passed. We are fighting to restore the original meaning of the commerce clause. This litigation will take time, but we are determined to get it right. Please continue to spread the word about the Obamacare Class Action. We need more people to join our fight now more than ever. Also, this ongoing fight costs money and time. Please give what you can to support Liberty Legal Foundation to help continue our fight. Thank you all for your support.
©2010 Liberty Legal Foundation | 9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 223, Knoxville, TN 37923
SEPTEMBER 17, 2010
Fellow Constitutionalists,
Liberty Legal Foundation just filed our opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. You probably remember that we filed another document just two weeks ago. That earlier document was our reply to the defendants' opposition to our motion for an injunction. There are three stages to any motion: 1) the motion is filed, 2) the other side files an opposition, 3) the original filer replies to the opposition. Our filing two weeks ago was our reply regarding our motion for an injunction. Today’s filing is our opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The document we filed today covers most of the same ground as our filing from two weeks ago. This is because the defendants opposition to our motion also included a motion from the defendants to dismiss. They put both in one filing. So, both today’s filing and our previous filing are responding to different arguments raised in one document filed by the defendants. So, there is a large amount of overlap in our two filings, but some new arguments are made. Please take a look at our latest.
Don’t be discouraged by the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It was expected. You should also be prepared for the judge to grant their motion. While we would be very pleased to have our first judge show the courage to do the right thing, he will most likely follow established precedent. We knew from the beginning that we would likely have to go to the Supreme Court in order to reverse the 68 year old commerce clause precedent. For that to happen the District Court must dismiss our case, allowing us to appeal. It would be a stunning victory to have the District Court deny the defendants’ motion, and we believe that this would be the correct outcome. But we fully expect the District Court to act like a typical government agency and pass the buck. In either case our fight will continue in the courts, and it will gain steam as it goes.
We’ll keep you informed as things move forward for the OCA.
For those of you who are concerned about Constitutional issues unrelated to Obamacare, you should know that Liberty Legal Foundation jumped into the immigration battle yesterday. We simultaneously filed actions in three separate federal courts. First, we filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the U.S. Supreme Court asking that court to dismiss the U.S. v. Arizona lawsuit. Second, we filed a motion to intervene in the U.S. v. Arizona lawsuit. Third, we filed an independent class action lawsuit against Obama, the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and a Unit Chief for the federal Law Enforcement Support Center.
The Immigration Class Action lawsuit (ICA) requests a court order forcing Obama and his administrative departments to obey and enforce existing immigration law.
Both the ICA lawsuit and the motion to intervene in U.S. v. Arizona allege that the Obama Administration has effectively set up an American dictatorship by ignoring mandatory priorities established by Congress and “setting their own priorities.” The Obama Administration's act completely ignores laws passed by Congress and signed by previous presidents. If we allow a President to openly ignore requirements of existing law, the separations of power established in the Constitution are destroyed and America has become a dictatorship.
Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack is Liberty Legal Foundation’s plaintiff in the Supreme Court and U.S. v. Arizona intervention actions. Sheriff Mack is also a lead plaintiff in the Immigration Class Action lawsuit. Sheriff Mack was one of the parties that successfully challenged aspects of the Brady Bill in the Supreme Court. The Brady Bill attempted to compel state law enforcement officers to act at the direction of the federal government. See Printz/Mack v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Sheriff Mack is also an author and lecturer on the subjects of State Sovereignty, the 10th Amendment, and the proper role of law enforcement in American government. Liberty Legal Foundation is grateful that Sheriff Richard Mack, a leader in the Constitutional cause, is willing to join us in our fight. Please add your name to his by joining the ICA.
All American citizens and businesses are encouraged to join the Immigration Class Action lawsuit. Please go to our web site and join. Please ask your all your friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers to join. The more people we have the more likely we will convince the federal judge to take us seriously.
Other groups are fighting amnesty, informing Americans about the illegal immigration problem, and sending out petitions. Liberty Legal encourages their efforts. However, the ICA is VERY different. By joining the ICA you are a party to a federal lawsuit. By joining the ICA you have an attorney speaking for you, to a federal judge, in a federal court. The ICA is your opportunity to do more than just tell politicians that you’re upset. The ICA is an opportunity to take legal action and to make the Obama administration answer for their failure to enforce immigration law. Please add your voice to our efforts.
In Liberty,
Van Irion
_______________________________________________
Now she may help rule on them.
Chicago Politics, and the beat goes on and on and on...
Once again the Senate sold us out.
Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court.... Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer.. It's all about payback time for those that compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there. We should be getting so sick of all of this nonsense.
Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket:
You can look up some of these hearings and guess what?? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!!! Check out these examples:
Search for dockfiles 09-8857
09-6790
09-724
08-10382
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm
____________________________________________________
Two weeks ago I filed an amended complaint adding 25,444 of you as co-plaintiffs in our lawsuit against Obamacare. The complaint ballooned from 9 pages to 284 pages, simply by adding your names.
I also filed a motion for preliminary injunction. This is a request for a court order prohibiting the Federal government from enforcing any aspect of Obamacare pending the outcome of our lawsuit.
Last week I flew to DC with a few representatives of the health care industry to personally serve Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Department of Justice. We left copies of the complaint, motion for injunction, and summons with staffers at the defendant’s offices. It’s not often that a Congressional candidate, a physician, an emergency room nurse, a Tea Party activist, and a reporter crowd into a Congressional office and plop down a 284 page lawsuit with 25,444 named plaintiffs. It was a sight to see, and quite a fun day. When we got to the White House the Secret Service agents refused to let us leave the documents at the gate. Then the White House administrative office two blocks from the White House refused to let us in the door. We’re now mailing the President’s copy of the complaint to the White House. We could have mailed all of the documents, but personally serving them was an important symbol of our frustration with the current leaders of our government. A volunteer has put together all of our amateur video into a documentary. Check it out:
Our efforts were rewarded by Fox News with a Friday night interview by former Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino on Greta Van Susturen’s show. Watch the interview:
Since the latest Fox interview, over 2400 new plaintiffs have signed up to join our lawsuit against Obamacare.
The defendants now have 60 days to respond to the complaint, and only 14 days to respond to the motion for preliminary injunction from the time Obama receives his copy. Once the defendants respond to the motion, we will have 7 days to answer any arguments they raise. Then the Federal Court can either rule on the motion or set a hearing. Most likely the court will set a hearing for some time in September or early October. I’ll let you all know as soon as I hear anything from the defendants or the Court. We will have at least a couple weeks notice before the hearing if you would like to make plans to be there. You do not have to attend, I will be representing you. Attendance is completely optional.
Thank you all for your willingness to fight our Federal government’s latest power grab in the form of Obamacare.
In Liberty,
Van R. Irion
Law Office of Van R Irion, PLLC
9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 223
Knoxville, TN 37923
www.irionlaw.com/oca
________________________
PRESS RELEASE
Army Refers Charges Against Lakin To Court Martial
Military Judge Appointed
Arraignment Set for Hearing on August 6, 2010
Washington, D.C., August 2, 2010. The Army has now referred charges against LTC Terrence Lakin for a General Court Martial. This action triggered the appointment of a Military Judge to preside over the trial, which will likely be scheduled before October, and held in Washington, D.C. at Ft. McNair.
On August 6, 2010 at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C., the court will convene for the purpose of Judge Lind taking Lakin’s plea to the charges which consist of “missing movement” and of refusing to obey orders. Today Lakin stated: “I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead ‘not guilty’ to them because of my conviction that our Commander-in-Chief may be ineligible under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices. The truth matters. The Constitution matters. If President Obama is a natural born citizen then the American people deserve to see proof, and if he is not, then I believe the orders in this case were illegal.” If convicted, Lakin faces up to four years at hard labor in a federal penitentiary.
LTC Lakin is a doctor and is in his 18th year of service in the Army. He is Board Certified in Family Medicine and Occupational and Environmental Medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department’s outstanding flight surgeons. In March of this year, he announced in a video posted on YouTube that he would refuse to obey orders until receiving proof of the President’s eligibility. So far, more than 200,000 people have viewed that video.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind will preside over the trial. Before becoming a judge, she served tours of duty both prosecuting and defending soldiers in court martial proceedings. She is a 1982 magna cum laude graduate of Siena College, and earned her law degree from Albany Law School in 1985. As Military Judge, she will decide all matters of law, including requests from the defense for discovery, and a motion the prosecution has said it will make to determine the lawfulness of the orders LTC Lakin is charged with refusing to obey. A “jury” comprised of Army officers will decide based on the facts whether Lakin is guilty or not guilty of the various felony-equivalent charges pending against him.
In standing up for his convictions and in keeping with his training that illegal orders must be disobeyed, LTC Lakin has been widely praised for upholding the rule of law and the paramount supremacy in our society of the United States Constitution.
Lakin is represented by military counsel, and by Paul Jensen, a civilian attorney from California who has been provided to him by the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, which has established a fund for Lakin’s legal defense. Further details are available on the Foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com
________________________
Virginia U.S. appeals court strikes down motion to dimiss ObamaCare lawsuit- Obama Watch
Obamacare, Virginia Federal Court, US Motion to Dismiss, Politics, Obama Watch, Ken Cuccinelli, Election 2010
Virginia U.S appeals Court has struck down motion to dismiss filed by U.S. Attorneys to prevent Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, from filing a lawsuit against the leviathon known as ObamaCare. A quick survey of the blogosphere shows the implications of this ruling and how the Judge’s language presages possible future rulings against the illegal law that Unconstitutionally pays for abortions, creates de facto hidden taxes, and, most importantly, forces Americans to buy a product.
Here are some excerpts from across the blogosphere:
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care reform. Virginia Democratic Party officials filed a Freedom of Information Act to determine how much Cuccinelli spent with the action. (Steve Helber/AP file)
Virginia Fed Ct Denies U.S. Motion To Dismiss Health Care Challenge – Copy and Analysis
A federal judge in Virginia has refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the State of Virginia challenging the Obamacare health care mandate as beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause and as a violation of the 10th Amendment. The judge allowed the suit to proceed on both grounds.
The opinion is a significant victory, but keep in mind this only is the start of the case. The Judge ruled that the case was not defective as a matter of law, and did not rule on the merits. A motion to dismiss, in this context, only tests whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim and sufficient facts as to suggest that the plaintiff is entitled to move forward.
______________________________
Virginia’s lawsuit asserts that President Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional on the basis of its individual mandate requiring Americans to buy insurance. The suit seeks to protect a Virginia statute, passed by the state legislature in March, which says Virginians cannot be compelled to buy health insurance or to pay a penalty if they refuse insurance.
A federal court in Richmond will hear oral arguments in the case on Thursday. That makes Cuccinelli’s office ground zero in Virginia’s battle to undo Obamacare.
Aside from the lawsuit, the state is also facing the fiscal burdens that come with Obamacare.
Official estimates put the law’s cost to the state at $1.5 billion through 2022. That’s because about 80,000 low-income children and teens in Virginia will no longer be covered by the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which supplies states with a generous federal match. Instead, they’ll be enrolled in Medicaid — and Virginia will have to foot more of the bill.
And those 80,000 children won’t be the only people added to the rolls: The state will eventually have to extend Medicaid coverage to some 400,000 additional people.
_______________________________________
INSTEAD OF A LAWSUIT, FIGHT BACK WITH A DEMAND FOR QUO WARRANTO
Dear Editor: The following email was sent to psenseman@az.gov, Governor Brewer’s press secretary:
July 11, 2010
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation. But is our representation today by the U.S. Congress any better than the colonists' representation by the British Parliament in 1773?
Dear Mr. Senseman,
As you know, there are many unanswered questions about Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional qualifications to act as President of the United States. Governor Brewer, or any sitting governor, for that matter, has unique standing to challenge Obama on this issue and resolve the constitutional crisis he has perpetrated on the nation by his refusal to prove that he is a “natural born Citizen” by filing a Writ of Quo Warranto.
( READ MORE )
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
7/19/10
The amended Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed! Please read this entire email for important information. Here's a portion of the press release:
More than 25,000 Americans file Federal Court Motion to Halt Obamacare, Chattanooga, TN July 19, 2010
More than 25,000 Americans are named as individual plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), filed today in Federal Court by TN attorney and Congressional Candidate Van Irion. Mr. Irion also filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting a court order to halt the enforcement of all aspects of the PPACA, also known as Obamacare. The suit challenges Obamacare on the basis that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate health care. Mr. Irion is asking the courts to re-evaluate the 68 year-old Commerce clause precedent, arguing that the precedent in effect destroys the intent of the Constitution and specifically violates the 10th Amendment. Mr. Irion says in the motion for Preliminary Injunction, “The fact that the error perpetrated against America in Wickard has fundamentally changed the way our government operates, should not be used as an excuse to continue the error.” Continued here...
The final number of plaintiffs was 25491. We had numerous invalid email addresses and requests to be removed from the suit. Also, in any instance where we were unsure of the information, the name was removed. Given the nature of the action, we had to err on the side of removing names rather than add someone who did not want to be added. Also, it is absolutely required that I have a valid email address for every plaintiff in order to communicate about the lawsuit. These logistical issues are why we are now requiring a small fee to join the lawsuit so we can be sure people truly want to be part of this action.
I will be filling a motion to join additional plaintiffs before the preliminary injunction is heard, so we still have the opportunity to increase our numbers. Any US citizen can still join by clicking HERE. As a recipient of this email, if your name or your business name was not included on the complaint, you can still join the suit by updating your profile using this link - http://obamacareclassaction.us1.list-manage.com/profile?u=792e0f34fd18fbbcf6cfb3f4b&id=b07321b020&e=61d43e4a79. If you are a married couple with only one email address, enter both your first names using 'and' in the first name field when you update your profile.
As soon as the preliminary injunction hearing date is known, everyone will be noticed and that will set the "join by" date for the joinder motion. You do not have to appear for any court hearing, but if you can be there it would have a great impact on the judge hearing the case. I will give you as much notice of hearing dates as I can.
Many aspects of Obamacare are already going into effect, particularly affecting Tanning Salons. It is important that we move forward as quickly as we can to minimize the damage caused by this unconstitutional DC power grab. It is critically important that we stand together and keep up the fight.
In Liberty,
Van
van@van4congress.org
_______________________________________________________________________________
More than 25,000 Americans file Federal Court Motion to Halt Obamacare
Chattanooga, TN – July 19, 2010
More than 25,000 Americans are named as individual plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), filed today in Federal Court by TN attorney and Congressional Candidate Van Irion. Mr. Irion also filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting a court order to halt the enforcement of all aspects of the PPACA, also known as Obamacare. The suit challenges Obamacare on the basis that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate health care. Mr. Irion is asking the courts to re-evaluate the 68 year-old Commerce clause precedent, arguing that the precedent in effect destroys the intent of the Constitution and specifically violates the 10th Amendment. Mr. Irion says in the motion for Preliminary Injunction, “The fact that the error perpetrated against America in Wickard has fundamentally changed the way our government operates, should not be used as an excuse to continue the error.”
The case was originally filed with one named plaintiff, Anthony Shreeve, on April 8, 2010. Since that time, over 25,000 Americans from all 50 states learned of the suit and asked to join. The latest filings amend the complaint to include the individuals and businesses that have contacted Irion to request that they be joined as co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Also included in the latest filings is a motion for a preliminary injunction. If granted, the motion would result in a court order from the Federal Court in Chattanooga prohibiting the Federal government from enforcing Obamacare, pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
Irion’s filed lawsuit is the first suit to allow any US citizen or
business to join as a plaintiff and is the only suit to directly attack
the legal precedent of the Commerce clause and therefore the
Constitutionality of Obamacare. Irion has been interviewed on both
Greta Van Susteren’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren", and Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “Freedom Watch"
“The lawsuit quickly became so popular among grassroots movements, that we set up a website to take plaintiff information and allow people to follow the progress of the case,” said Irion. The suit has been dubbed Obamacare Class Action, or “OCA”, and can be found HERE. Individuals and businesses can join by filling out a form that captures name, address and email address. Phone number and company name is optional, but US companies have the option of signing on as a corporate plaintiff.
“This is truly the ‘People’s Suit’” Irion says. It’s their name on the complaint. America is suing the President, Pelosi, Reid and the Federal government, saying that the Obamacare legislation is wrong. It is unconstitutional and must be overturned.”
The complaint was filed in Federal Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Chattanooga, on April 8, case file number 1:10cv-71. The amended complaint adding over 25,000 Americans was filed July 19, along with the motion for preliminary injunction. For more information about Van Irion, visit Van4Congress or Law Offices of Van R Iron PLLC.
We win the Steve Gill Poll, but that’s a bad thing?
Screen Shot of Online Poll
The weekend of June 26th, The Steve Gill Radio show conducted an online poll for the 3rd District. We messaged our supporters in the 3rd District and asked them to show their support by voting in the poll and they did. We won!
However, since several of our supporters are in Iraq serving in the 252nd out of Cleveland, their IP address made it appear they were from out of state because their service is routed through www.telspirion.com of McAllen, Texas. Mr. Gill jumped to the conclusion that the votes were coming from Ron Paul supporters, despite having no evidence, and has publically maligned the Van Irion for Congress campaign over the poll results.
We have repeatedly asked Mr. Gill to provide evidence for what he is saying and to publish the actual statistics of the poll. He is yet to respond to that request. Further he provided false information that became posted at the chattanoogan.com. We have contacted chattanoogan.com with the facts and are yet to receive a response. Neither the Steve Gill show nor the Chattanoogan contacted our campaign prior to publishing their accusations. If they had, we would have been able to explain why so many votes appeared to come out of Texas.
Thank you for supporting our campaign in this poll. Many of you are struggling to make it in this economy and are not able to donate. However, your hard work, talking to your friends and neighbors, being active online and volunteering is winning this race and taking the 3rd District Seat away from the establishment that has sold out its constituents in favor of big money and political influence.
Ron Paul Endorses Van Irion
June 21, 2010 4:03 PM EDT, LAKE JACKSON, Texas–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
Congressman Ron Paul has endorsed Republican Van Irion for United States Congress from the 3rd district of Tennessee.
Said Dr. Paul, “I am proud to endorse Van Irion for United States Congress.
“Van Irion will do the work to fight for lower taxes and spending and for more freedom in Washington. We need people like Van voting with me in Congress.
“Van Irion is a dynamic leader who understands our Constitution and will fight against out-of-control government to restore our Liberty. Van has the courage to stand up against the bailouts and government takeovers being forced down our throats by Washington insiders.
“I have been particularly impressed by Van’s leadership in the fight against Obamacare. Van Irion understands that Americans deserve more freedom, not less, in our healthcare system and is using his skills and good name to fight back. We should all be proud of his fine work.
“The American people need more than just another vote. We need a man of principle who will always stand up for what is right. We need a citizen politician who will represent US. Van Irion is just that kind of individual.”
Said Liberty PAC director Jesse Benton, “We believe that Van Irion is the best candidate in this race and is best poised to win in both the primary and general elections. We hope the people of Tennessee will send this fine conservative leader to Washington at a time when he is sorely needed.”
Liberty PAC is Congressman Paul’s leadership Political Action Committee. Its mission is to identify and support candidates that believe in Liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility and a common sense, pro-America foreign policy.
###
Contact: Liberty PAC
Jesse Benton, 202-246-6363
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________