THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
by Devvy Kidd
"Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct at regular periods under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative houses." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389
Impeach all nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Why? Let me count the ways for you.
Second only to the greatest heist in American history, the "Federal" Reserve Banking Act of 1913, is the continuing saga of an individual who has gone by five different aliases and lied and cheated his way into the White House. That would be a devout Marxist known as Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barack Dunham aka Barry Obama aka Barack Hussein Obama.
Those who have followed this incredible scam against we the people are fully aware of the massive distortion by the subset of the Democratic/Communist Party USA; that would be the disgraced "mainstream" media as well as cable networks. Even the so-called 'fair and balanced' FOX News Network refuses to address the lies and fraud. Instead, the best they can come up with is Bill O'Reilly slinging labels like tin foil hat folks or Kool Aid drinkers. Let me give you one example: Answer Man: Was Barack Obama ever Barry Soetoro?
"From every reputable source I can find, there is no evidence that the president ever took the name "Soetoro" -- and he certainly was known as Barack Obama long before his 21st birthday."
The answer man is intellectually lazy. His reputable sources must be the White House or rags like the Huffington Post. Obama was known by his classmates at Occidental College as Barry Soetoro, long before he turned 21; when he went to school in Hawaii:
"The former classmate, who referred to Obama as “Barry” throughout the interview (the name she claims his classmates called him), said that she
believes Obama was at the prestigious school on scholarship." The phony 'answer' man above must not have seen Soetoro's school records from Indonesia: "Information about Obama’s Indonesian schooling first surfaced in January 2007 in a blog called An American Expat in Southeast Asia. "
The blog documented Obama was registered Jan. 1, 1968, under the name Barry Soetoro, with serial number 203, in Class 1B at the Catholic Franciscan Assisi Primary School in Jakarta.
"School records listed Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961. His religion was listed as Islam. " According to the blog, school documents recorded Barry's father as L. Soetoro Ma, a worker in the director general's office in the TNI Topography division of the Indonesian army. The records indicated Barry attended the Franciscan school for three years, until Class 3. WND reported Aug. 17, 2008, that conformation for Obama’s attendance in the Indonesian school came with the surfacing of a 2007 Associated Press photograph by Tatan Syuflana, an Indonesian AP reporter and photographer. The photo showed Obama’s registration card at the Assisi school.
"An AP spokesman confirmed to WND that the photograph of the registration card was authentic. The listing of Obama in an official record in a foreign country as a foreign citizen should have prompted a major media investigation."
The issue of Soetoro's dual citizenship making him forever ineligible has been raging since 2008. Several times the U.S. Supreme Court has set for private conference to "discuss" the merits of cases; one example which hasn't changed: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obama Nationality Case
"The court without comment declined to hear "Donofrio v. Wells," a suit that had attempted to keep Obama off the New Jersey ballot. Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick had claimed Obama had dual nationality at birth, because of his Kansas-born mother and his Kenyan-born father, who was a British subject at the time."
Despite the overwhelming evidence and previous Supreme Court cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to address one of the most important issues in our life time: Barry Soetoro's ineligibility to even run for president, never mind anyone having the "right" to vote for him. As a matter of fact, as many of us have pointed out, Justice Clarence Thomas seems to think it's some sort of joke:
Justice Clarence Thomas: We're 'evading' eligibility "U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president, the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court's budget earlier this week."
How utterly disgraceful. It is also a violation of his oath of office.
For the second time, due to the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to take on whether or not an ineligible individual ran for president, allegedly 66 million imbeciles voted Soetoro back into office. Allegedly because vote fraud was rampant, again. Instead of stopping this fraud back in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court -- ALL nine of them -- deserve to be removed from the court. The irreparable damage done to this country by someone we have zero documentation and history on has been covered ad nauseum by so many while the U.S. Supreme Court "evades" the question of eligibility..
Having allowed this major issue to fester and another illegal election, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another conference only three weeks after the impostor was once again sworn in; committing perjury, again. February 15, 2013, all nine justices will take up the issue now known as Forgerygate. Incredible!
Do I believe it will be referred to for oral arguments? Absolutely not. I would love to be wrong, but let me give you another egregious example of the U.S. Supreme Court giving we the people "the finger" instead of taking on the issue of 'natural born' citizen:
"This year Liberty Legal Foundation became the only organization to present the Supreme Court with an opportunity to rule on the substantive definition of “natural born citizen.” Literally hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by individuals and organizations attempting to challenge Obama’s qualifications to serve as President. Until LLF got involved, none of those lawsuits reached the Supreme Court on the substantive question: What is a “natural born citizen” as that term is defined in Article II of the Constitution? Prior to our Welden v. Obama case, every other eligibility lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court, and every one since, presented the Court with procedural questions. Those procedural questions were fairly routine, and had little or nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility. LLF’s case was different.
"Liberty Legal Foundation represented a Georgia resident through every level of Georgia's state courts, including the Georgia Supreme Court. Then we took this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. What made this case unique was the fact that the first court to hear our case, the lowest court in Georgia, ruled on the substance of the matter. " Because of LLF’s briefs, that Georgia court denied Obama’s motion to dismiss on various procedural issues. Unfortunately that Georgia court then decided that “natural born citizen,” under Article II, means any person born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
"While the Georgia court's ruling was completely wrong, the fact that it ruled on the actual issue was a huge victory. Even with a completely incorrect ruling, the fact that the ruling addressed the definition of “natural born citizen” meant that LLF could appeal the actual issue that we wanted resolved. This was the first time this had happened anywhere in America, despite hundreds of attempts by other organizations.
"So we sent a petition to review this definition to the US Supreme Court. Last October the Supreme Court refused to accept our case. They had an opportunity to definitively answer a question that had spawned hundreds of cases, and continues to spawn new cases almost every day. Yet they said that it wasn't worth their attention.
"I believe that this refusal to accept our case represents an acknowledgment that the Court didn't want to accept a case when they knew their ruling would either unseat a President, or remove any remaining belief that the Court follows its own precedent. You see, the Georgia court's ruling is a joke. It completely ignored clear Supreme Court precedent. It also relied completely upon an Indiana state court ruling, instead of following U.S. Supreme Court precedent. " BTW: the Indiana court ruling was so flawed as to be laughable. Please understand what I am telling you: The U.S. Supreme Court refused to uphold the Constitution for political reasons. It's that simple.
Many who receive my free email alerts are aware of Montgomery Blair Sibley (see links at bottom of this column). He has been fighting this issue for years and stonewalled by every federal judge along the way. Montgomery just might have thrown things into high gear with his recent announcement:
Washington D.C. – "A new front on the legal battle to establish that Barack Hussein Obama, II, is ineligible to be President was opened today by Montgomery Blair Sibley. To date, no federal court has taken up the merits of Obama's eligibility relying instead on the dubious legal doctrine of “standing” to dismiss every lawsuit. Accordingly, Sibley has released his Stuxnet-like Motion to Dismiss Indictment into the federal prison system." Rest at link...look what Montgomery has done!
Flashback: Dr. Edwin Vieira raised the same legal argument in his Dec. 8, 2008 column: In the Shadow of Nemesis.
There are two other cases the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to even address that should have been top priority.
The first involves a dear friend of mine, Tom Selgas; the case was Selgas v. HCAD. Docket 12 -39 was scheduled for September 24, 2012. Act surprised, denied. A Petition for Rehearing was filed. Act surprised, denied, no comment. A new Writ of Certiorari was filed, February 8, 2013, using a different Petitioner, MyMail, Ltd and different Respondent, Internal Revenue Service. The attorney of record is Larry Becraft. Once it's posted, I'll send it as a link in my free email alerts. Again, it deals with the value in "dollars" regarding gold clauses.
What is so important about Tom's case? I urge you to read the Writ of Certiorari filed with the the United States Supreme Court. If not today, book mark and read over lunch or on a weekend until you get through it because it is very important. Tom and his wife paid for their beautiful homestead and acres with gold. The dispute is with appraisal of the property; gold vs worthless "Federal" Reserve Notes (the "money" in your wallet):
"The Texas Twelfth Court of Appeals held that the monetary value of a private “gold-clause contract,” which required payment solely in currently minted United States legal-tender American Eagle gold coins, is not the aggregate face value in “dollars” of the coins actually tendered; but rather is measured by those coins aggregate value in Federal Reserve notes, which is many times the value assigned by Congress."
"If this decision is allowed to stand, State courts can randomly set the value assigned to such U.S. legal tender based on the perceived “market value” of gold on any given day. This would result in widely fluctuating valuations of U.S. legal tender in different jurisdictions throughout the United states, nullifying the protections authorized by the use of “gold-clause contracts” and triggering profoundly negative effects throughout the United States."
A critically important issue the U.S. Supreme Court simply ignored.
Next case was also brought by a wonderful individual I call friend who allegedly lost his reelection primary in the Idaho State Legislature last year, Phil Hart. Phil is the author of: Constitutional Income, Do You Have Any? I read Phil's cert dealing with the question: Does the 16th Amendment provide Congress with an exception to the Constitution's apportionment clause regarding its authority to levy a direct tax? Act surprised. Denied.
Three critically important issues. Denied three times. Don't tell me those justices can't appreciate the seriousness of all three cases. And, don't be naive enough to actually believe the U.S. Supreme Court is not just as much an activist court as federal courts throughout the country because they are. Case one deals with an ineligible candidate, a bi-racial candidate, who has twice usurped the office of President of these united States of America. Case two deals with the value of real money affecting the entire population. Case three dealt with another monstrous lie: misapplication of the federal income tax.
Elena Kagan sits on the court unlawfully because she was nominated by a putative president. She's also a hard core socialist. Solicitor General Elena Kagan has called for Socialists to unite in order to defeat the "entrenched foe."
Sonya Sotomayer sits on the court unlawfully because she was nominated by a private citizen. Since Soetoro is forever ineligible to run for president, he is still a private citizen. Sotomayer should have been indicted and convicted for her participation in a bankruptcy fraud scheme while sitting on the federal bench:
* GOP Senators Ignore Sotomayor's Criminal Activities (July 20, 2009)
* Sotomayor's Confirmation Vote Rescheduled - Here's Why (July 22, 2009)
* Justice Sotomayor: Tax Evasion, Perjury - What Did Obama Know & When? (April 23, 2012)
That shameful court receives about 10,000 writs per year; roughly 75-100 cases ever make it to oral arguments. Why? Because circuit courts across this country can't even come to the same decision when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. A four page document and law libraries filled with thousands and thousands of differeing opinions. It's absurd.
I can also tell you the grotesque shennanigans by the individuals who clerk for the nine justices should also be the subject of a federal grand jury. What they pulled in Leo Donofrio's case as well as Orly Taitz', I believe borders on criminal. Let me tell you another dirty little secret. Individuals pay attorneys hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in legal fees to get their case to the U.S. Supreme Court after years of waiting for the "wheels of justice" to turn. For too long, clerks are the ones choosing which cases will be heard.
Below are two columns everyone should read. The first by yours truly; the second by an attorney named Craig Tweedy.
"The petition's Issue 1 predicted law clerk fraud on the Supreme Court. Issue 3 stated, "If a state bar and supreme court subverted truth, due process and the law of the land to suspend an attorney for having challenged circuit law clerk protection for judicial fiats imposing different claims than filed, does this warn that the "So Help Me GOD" Duty to defend the Constitution violates protocol? If so, does this signal and also confess the inside means, in practical effect, to retire the Constitution, rule of law, due process and function of this [Supreme] Court, as well?...."
The Outlaw Congress has turned a blind eye to crushing decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court for years, think Kelo vs City of New London back in 2005 and the most recent, thanks to John Roberts, deciding the unconstitutional Obamacare is a tax. That is being challenged by Pacific Legal Foundation on solid legal ground:
"In its ruling on Obamacare this past June, the U.S. Supreme Court characterized the ACA’s charge for people who don’t buy health insurance as an exercise of the federal taxing authority. That holding opened the way for PLF’s legal assault: PLF’s lawsuit argues the ACA was introduced in the wrong house of Congress. It started in the Senate even though the Constitution’s “Origination Clause” (Article I, Section 7) requires that taxes start in the House. " PLF’s case is before Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Howell recently ruled that PLF’s Origination Clause argument may go forward.
“With Obamacare, the legislative process was backwards — and that makes it unconstitutional,” said Beard. “If it’s a tax, as the Supreme Court called it, then it started in the wrong house.” The Origination Clause says that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”
"What became the ACA, however, was unveiled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In a so-called “shelf bill” ploy, Reid took a totally unrelated House measure on veterans’ issues, struck out all its text, and substituted the voluminous language creating the ACA, with its heavy taxes, including the charge for people who don’t buy insurance.
"The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether such a gut and switch ploy is constitutional. Georgetown University Law School Professor Randy Barnett, a leading constitutional critic of Obamacare, sees the importance of getting an answer from the Judiciary. “If any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act,” he wrote recently, in an article on PLF’s lawsuit.
“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy", as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters — members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”
For the three cases above, the U.S. Supreme Court - all of them - should be impeached and thrown off the bench for cowardice and/or political agendas. What good is the Supreme Court if they refuse to hear cases that affect all of us - not to mention eligibility for president of these united States of America? Some joke Justice Clarence Thomas. Funny thing, though. I'm not laughing. Since the toxic hearings excoriating a fine, decent human being, the late Robert Bork, the U.S. Supreme Court has become a political cesspool.
Dozens of activist federal judges across this country should have been impeached years ago. Of course, it won't happen because the American people just reelected 90% of the same liars, thieves and cowards who have allowed judicial tyranny to flourish in this country for decades. The U.S. Congress is a body of gutless cowards who pay more attention to making political speeches during hearings (Benghazi-gate) than paying attention to the rotten federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The judiciary is one of the most important branches of government the Outlaw Congress continues to ignore for politics. The American people have already lost faith in the Outlaw Congress (except those with their hand out). When they lose all confidence in our court system, lawlessness will spread across this country like wild fire.
Most Americans pay no attention to what's going on in Washington, DC and the thousands of new laws, treaties and regulations - until the system bites them. Judicial tyranny has ruled this nation for too many decades, but whose fault is tyranny in the courts? Look in the mirror. Our freedoms and liberties are being crushed because Americans go to the ballot box every two years and vote back the same incumbents who have destroyed this once free nation. Now, we're all paying for it.
Highly recommend: How to DeThrone the Imperial Judiciary by Dr. Edwin Vieira
1- Obama’s College Classmate: ‘The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia’
2- Quo Warranto Filed by Presidential Candidate
3- Preliminary Injunction Hearing In Sibley's Electoral College Lawsuit Challenging Obama's "Natural Born Citizen" Status -Subpoena Issued for Obama's Original Birth Certificates
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.