The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon

 
» Posts tagged 'Supreme Court'
 
 

Supreme Court

Last nail in coffin

By:

Democrats have widely dismissed House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) announcement that he plans to file a lawsuit against President Barack Obama for misuse of executive orders. But many Americans believe that Boehner may have a real case against the President, especially after the Supreme Court delivered a ruling Thursday against Obama Administration efforts to expand executive power.

The Supreme Court’s nine Justices ruled that the three so-called recess appointments the President made to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, as Congress conducted pro forma sessions every three days to avoid going into recess, were unConstitutional.

The ruling serves as a point of vindication for members of the GOP who have claimed that Obama’s unilateral actions in defiance of Congress in making the appointment and with regard to various other matters illustrate the Administration’s utter disregard for the Constitution.

“Today, the Supreme Court invalidated President Obama’s unlawful abuse of the President’s recess appointments power. President Obama ignored the plain text of the Constitution and attempted to make unilateral recess appointments — circumventing the checks and balances of confirmation — when the Senate was not, in fact, in recess,” Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said after the ruling was handed down. “Today, a unanimous Court rightly rejected that presidential abuse of power.”

Cruz added, “This marks the twelfth time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama Administration’s calls for greater federal executive power.”

In April 2013, when the tally of unanimous Supreme Court rulings against the Administration sat at nine, Cruz issued a report detailing what the Nation would look like had Obama gotten his way in court.

“If the Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal government would be able to electronically track all of our movements, fine us without a fair hearing, dictate who churches choose as ministers, displace state laws based on the president’s whims, bring debilitating lawsuits against individuals based on events that occurred years ago, and destroy a person’s private property without just compensation,” he wrote at the time.

For the time being, the Senate has rendered moot the recess appointment issue at the center of the Thursday ruling because of a rule change that allows for nominee confirmations with a majority vote. However, the decision serves as a censure of Obama’s view of Presidential power; and that is paramount.

The ruling also gives Boehner’s forthcoming lawsuit traction that his Congressional critics on the left hadn’t anticipated.

“The Constitution makes it clear that a president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws. In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws,” the House Speaker said, announcing his intentions on Wednesday. “When there are conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch, it’s… our responsibility to stand up for this institution.”

In a memo sent to fellow Republicans, Boehner said that he will challenge the “king-like authority” Obama has exerted by issuing executive orders to enact policies affecting healthcare, energy, education, foreign policy and other matters of national importance. Boehner didn’t provide a list of specific executive orders that he plans to challenge, but told lawmakers that he plans to bring legislation on the matter to the floor in July once the Rules Committee has reviewed the plan.

The House Speaker said that the main point of the lawsuit is protecting the balance of government powers, as set forth in the Constitution.

“What we’ve seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch,” Boehner said. “On behalf of the institution and the Constitution, standing up and fighting for this is the best long-term interest of the Congress.”

The House General Counsel and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a group of lawmakers that includes whips from both parties and majority and minority leaders, would ultimately bring the suit against the Obama Administration if Boehner’s plan moves forward.

Democrats have responded to Boehner’s plan with familiar groans, accusing the GOP of baseless criticism of the Administration and insinuating that the lawsuit is the precursor to a fruitless impeachment endeavor.

“In this case it seems that Republicans have shifted their opposition into a higher gear. Frankly, I didn’t know it was a gear that even existed,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday. “They are considering a taxpayer funded lawsuit against the president of the United States for doing his job… [It’s] the kind of step that I think most Americans wouldn’t support.”

But George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, a noted Obama supporter on many issues, isn’t so sure that the Obama Administration is immune to damning outcomes that could result from the suit.

“I think there is a case against the President for exceeding his authority,” Turley told a baffled MSNBC pundit Wednesday. “I happen to agree with the President on many of his priorities and policies, but as I testified in Congress I think he has crossed the Constitutional line.”

While the professor said that it is difficult to sue a sitting U.S. President, it isn’t impossible. And Obama certainly hasn’t done himself any favors in avoiding the potential legal challenge.

“[W]hen the President went to Congress and said that he was going to go it alone, it obviously raises a concern,” Turley noted. “Because there’s no license for going it alone in our system.”

TLB recommends you visit Personal Liberty Digest for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here: http://personalliberty.com/scotus-strikes-12-obama-power-grabs-boehners-lawsuit-finish-lawless-administration/

The U.S. Supreme Court offered a surprising amount of concern Tuesday about states laws allowing police to collect a DNA sample of anyone arrested — but not yet convicted — of serious crimes.

A ruling soon on the privacy versus public safety question could have wide-reaching implications in the rapidly evolving technology surrounding criminal procedure.

Law enforcement lauds genetic testing’s potential as the “gold standard” of reliable evidence gathering, especially to solve “cold cases” involving violent offenders.

But privacy rights groups counter the state’s “trust us” promise not to abuse the technology does not ease their concerns that someone’s biological makeup could soon be applied for a variety of non-criminal purposes.

Privacy vs. prosecution: DNA testing gets high court review

The justices raised a host of hypotheticals in their spirited oral arguments, laying out two sharply divided scenarios.

“There is something inherently dangerous about DNA collection that is not the same as fingerprinting,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “How far do we let the state go each time it has some form of custody over you in schools, in workplaces, wherever else the state has control over your person?”

“This is what is at stake: Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy,” said Justice Samuel Alito. “Why isn’t this the fingerprinting of the 21st century? What is the difference?”

Twenty-six states and the federal government allow genetic swabs to be taken after a felony arrest and without a warrant.

Each has different procedures, but in all cases, only a profile is created. About 13 individual markers of some 3 billion are isolated from a suspect’s DNA. That selective information does not reveal the full genetic makeup of a person, and officials stress, nothing is shared with any other public or private party, including any medical diagnostics.

The Obama administration has signaled its support.

The case involves a Maryland man convicted of a 2003 rape in Wicomico County in the state’s Eastern Shore region. Alonzo King Jr. had been arrested four years ago on an unrelated assault charge, and a biological sample was automatically obtained at that time. That sample was linked to the earlier sexual assault.

King moved to suppress that evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, but was ultimately convicted of the 2003 first-degree rape offense and was given a life sentence. Both King and his legal team turned down CNN’s request for an interview.

A divided Maryland Court of Appeals later agreed with King, saying suspects under arrest enjoy a higher level of privacy than a convicted felon, outweighing the state’s law enforcement interests. That court also said obtaining King’s DNA immediately after arrest was not necessary in identifying him, and that the process was more personally invasive than standard fingerprinting.

The Fourth Amendment grants the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The issue of citizen privacy has been particularly acute since the 9/11 attacks. Federal and state governments have stepped up surveillance of suspected terrorists and their allies and high-risk targets, like government buildings and shopping malls.

Supreme Court blocks ‘Catch-22′ spy case

The current conservative majority court has generally been supportive of law enforcement in recent search and privacy disputes, but not always. The court last year ruled police could not place a GPS tracking device on a drug suspect’s car for several weeks, without first obtaining a search warrant.

Chief Justice John Roberts last July allowed the Maryland DNA law to stay in effect until a full appeal could be filed. The high court then agree to decide the constitutional issues. Roberts at the time hinted his tentative support, but in arguments he was tough on both sides.

“There’s no reason you couldn’t undertake this procedure with respect to anybody pulled over for a [misdemeanor] traffic violation?” he asked with some concern, to state attorney Katherine Winfree. She said Maryland’s law in three years produced 225 matches, 75 prosecutions and 42 convictions.

“Well that’s really good,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, somewhat facetiously. “I’ll bet if you conduct a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you’d get more convictions, too. That [statistic] proves nothing.”

Scalia said that catching bad guys is a “good thing, but the Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way.”

Other members of the bench were equally skeptical.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “This is very reliable tool, but it’s not based on any kind of suspicion of the individual who’s being subjected to it, right?”

Justice Elena Kagan: “Just because you’ve been arrested, doesn’t mean that you lose the privacy expectations and things you have that aren’t related to the offense that you’ve been arrested for. .. If it’s just to solve cold cases, which is the way you started, then it’s just like searching your house, to see what’s in your house that could help to solve a cold case.”

But there was a measure of support for the state’s efforts.

Justice Stephen Breyer: “I can argue that it is certainly a much lesser intrusion than fingerprints. You have to stand there, have the thing rolled; stick out your tongue. I mean, it’s hard to say it’s more for me. Accuracy: it’s much more accurate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy: “My question is whether or not the police who have John Doe in custody for a felony have an interest in knowing at the outset or within a few weeks time whether or not that person has committed other crimes?”

Roberts again: “Doesn’t that sound just like a Breathalyzer? You are pulled over, they [police] say, we want you to take a Breathalyzer test. They say, you don’t have to, but if you don’t your license is suspended for six months or whatever. Why isn’t that the same thing?”

15 Supreme Court cases that changed America

A 1994 federal law created a national database in which local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies can compare and share information on DNA matches from convicted felons, but courts have been at odds on just when such samples can be collected and the information distributed.

The state DNA collection law in Maryland is set to expire at the end of the year, but the justices are likely to decide its constitutionality before then.

In a brief filed by 49 states supporting Maryland, officials also say the information is secure, and retested when an initial “hit” is identified. After a warrant is issued for probable cause, another fresh DNA sample is taken and it is that test that is used to ultimately prosecute in court. Each initial test costs about $30.

The Fourth Amendment requires the government to balance legitimate law enforcement interests with the privacy rights of individuals. A key area of concern in the high court was whether developing “Rapid DNA” technology will allow initial identification testing to be completed within about two hours. Currently it can take two weeks or more, depending on backlogs.

In responding to concerns DNA testing after arrest had only one real purpose—to solve unrelated, past crimes– the state said quick testing of DNA could serve another purpose. Winfree said similar to fingerprints, the new technology could help determine whether arrested suspects should be released on bail, or remain in jail because of other newly suspected past offenses. She cited an FBI estimate the new technology could in place within 18 months.

King’s attorney, Kannon Shanmugam, told the high court, “There are over 12 million arrests in the United States every year. Virtually all of the arguments advanced by [Maryland] and the United States would justify the blanket collection and retention of DNA from ordinary citizens.”

And civil liberties groups worry inadequate testing by overwhelmed lab technicians can lead to errors, such as the one that sent Dwayne Jackson to prison for armed robbery. It was three years before a lab mistake was noticed, and the Nevada man was freed as an innocent man.

Deoxyribonucleic acid is a coded molecule providing a genetic map for the development of all known living organisms. By 2000, all 50 states and the federal government required DNA collection from convicted offenders, and was soon expanded by many jurisdiction to criminal arrests.

The number of offender profiles in federal Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is now about 10 million, with more than a million arrestee profiles.

Congress in December passed the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, a grant program to help states pay for the expanded system. The 22-year-old woman was murdered in 2003, but her killer was not identified until three years later, after his conviction for another crime, when his DNA matched cold-case evidence under the victim’s fingernails.

Her mother, Jayann Sepich, personally lobbied lawmakers for months to ensure passage.

President Obama signed the bill last month. “It’s the right thing to do,” he said in 2010, of expanding DNA swabs for arrestees. “This is where the national registry becomes so important.”

The case is Maryland v. King (12-207). A ruling will be issued within a few months.

Read original here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/26/justice/supreme-court-dna/

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to side with Monsanto Co. in its claim that an Indiana farmer violated the company’s patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to its weed-killer.

None of the justices in arguments at the high court seemed ready to endorse farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman’s argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company’s Roundup herbicide.

Chief Justice John Roberts wondered “why in the world would anybody” invest time and money on seeds if it was so easy to evade patent protection.

To protect its investment in their development, Monsanto has a policy that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.

The case is being closely watched by researchers and businesses holding patents on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies.

The issue for the court is how far the patents held by the world’s largest seed company extend. More than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.

The 75-year-old Bowman bought the expensive seeds for his main crop of soybeans, but decided to look for something cheaper for a risky, late-season soybean planting.

He went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed.

Bowman reasoned that most of those soybeans also would be resistant to weed killers, as they initially came from herbicide-resistant seeds too. He was right, and he repeated the practice over eight years. In 2007, Monsanto sued and won an $84,456 judgment.

Across the court’s conservative-liberal divide, justices expressed little sympathy for Bowman’s actions.

Justice Stephen Breyer said Bowman could make many uses of the soybeans he bought from the grain elevator. “Feed it to the animals. Feed it your family or make tofu turkey,” Breyer said.

But patent law makes it illegal for Bowman to plant them. “What it prohibits here is making a copy of the patented invention and that is what he did,” Breyer said.

Mark Walters, Bowman’s Seattle-based lawyer, tried to focus the court on the claim that Monsanto has used patent law to bully farmers.

“What they are asking for is for the farmer to assume all the risk of farming, but yet they can sit back and control how that product is used,” Walters said.

Monsanto lawyer Seth Waxman said the company put 13 years and hundreds of millions of dollars into developing herbicide-resistant seeds.

“Without the ability to limit the reproduction of soybeans containing this patented trait, Monsanto could not have commercialized its invention and never would have produced what is now the most popular patented technology” in farming, Waxman said.

The Obama administration also is backing the company.

Consumer groups and organic food producers have fought Monsanto over genetically engineered farm and food issues in several settings. They lost a campaign in California last year to require labels on most genetically engineered processed foods and produce. Monsanto and other food and chemical companies spent more than $40 million to defeat the ballot measure.

A decision is expected by June.

The case is Bowman vs. Monsanto Co., 11-796.

Read original here: http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/29467117-57/monsanto-bowman-seeds-court-soybeans.html.csp

President  Harrison J. Bounel

February 15, 2013  by Bob  Livingston

Who is Harrison J. Bounel? According  to the 2009 tax return submitted by President Barack Obama, he’s the  President of the United States. All nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to discuss this anomaly  today.

The case in  question is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah  Bowen, California Secretary of State, and the  Justices are finally looking at it thanks to the dogged determination of Orly  Taitz. The case calls into question many  of the documents Obama (Bounel, Soetoro, Soebarkah, etc.) has used and/or  released as authentic since he came on the national scene. The case contends  that the documents — birth certificate, Social Security number, Selective  Service registration, etc. — are fakes or forgeries. If that’s the case, Obama  should not have been on the California ballot in 2008 and, therefore, should not  have received the State’s electoral votes.

Four of the nine  Justices must vote to move the case forward. We’ll see.

Meantime, on Feb.  4, Kathleen O’Leary, presiding judge of the 4th District Court of  Appeal, reinstated the appeal of Taitz v. Obama et al filed by Taitz when  she ran for Senate. That case involves evidence of 1.5 million invalid voter  registrations in the State of California. The appeal also involves Obama’s lack  of legitimacy to hold the office of President based on his forged IDs, stolen  Connecticut Social Security number, the fact the last name he’s using is not  legally his and his fraudulent claim to be the U.S.  citizen.

Evidence in the  case includes:

  • A certified copy of the passport   records of Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, showing her son’s legal last   name to be Soebarkah, not Obama.
  • Obama’s school records from   Indonesia, showing his citizenship to be Indonesian.
  • Sworn   affidavits of top law enforcement experts and investigators, showing Obama’s   birth certificate and Selective Service certificate are forgeries and that the   Social Security number used by Obama on his 2009 tax returns as posted on   WhiteHouse.gov was fraudulent. (The SSN failed when checked through both   E-Verify and the Social Security Number Verification   Service.)

On another legal  front, Obama defaulted in the case of Grinols et al v. Obama et al on  Jan. 30 when he failed to file a response within 21 days of being served notice  of the suit. This case also involves Obama’s phony SSN.

The suit  states:

[I]nvestigator   Albert Hendershot found in the database ofhttp://www.acxiom.com/identity-solutions/acxiom-identity-batch-solutions/ the name of   the individual whose Social Security Obama is using. Acxciom-batch-solutions   showed (Exhibit 1) that Harry J Bounel with the same Social Security number   xxx-xx-4425 at 5046 S Greenwood Ave in Chicago, home address of Barack Obama,   Database shows Bounel with the same address and Social Security number as   Barack Obama himself. According to the databases last changes to the   information on Harrison (Harry) J Bounel were made in and around November 2009   by Michelle Obama, who is listed as Bounel’s relative. Database changes can   involve entering the information or deletion of information. It appears that   changes made by relative Michelle Obama included deletion of information,   which was done at a time when Taitz brought to Federal court in the Central   District of California before Judge David O. Carter a case of election   challenge by her client, former U.S. ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes and 40 state   Representatives and high ranked members of the U.S.   Military.

Recently   obtained results of the 1940 census, Exhibit 2, provided the last missing   link, link (sic) between Harry J. Bounel and the date of birth of 1890.   Exhibit 2 shows the printout of the U.S. census, showing Harry J Bounel,   immigrant from Russia, residing at 915 Daly Ave, Bronx, NY, age 50 during the   1940 census, meaning he was born in 1890, as shown in the affidavit of   Investigators Daniels and Sankey.

There is a   pattern of Obstruction of Justice and tampering with the official records and   falsification/forgery of the official records related to Obama. This happens   in particular when [George W.] Bush employees leave their positions and are   replaced by Obama appointees.

Taitz has asked  for expedited default judgment and post judgment discovery in this case out of  fear that any records on hand at the Social Security office will be destroyed  when George W. Bush-appointed Commissioner Michael Astrue leaves office in February. Records that might have proven  Obama’s Selective Service registration was a forgery were destroyed in 2009  after Bush-appointed Selective Service Director William Chatfield resigned,  Taitz alleges.

See original here: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

By developing and inserting a glyphosate- resistant gene into plant DNA, Monsanto Co. has created premium seeds of soybean, canola and cotton able to withstand its Roundup herbicides and similar weed killers.

In the agribusiness world, Monsanto is known as an aggressive enforcer of restrictions on farmers’ use of its patented line of genetically engineered crops. Now the St. Louis-based conglomerate is in a showdown with a southern Indiana farmer that will play out this month in the U.S. Supreme Court.

At issue is Vernon Hugh Bowman’s argument that Monsanto lost the right to keep him from planting Roundup Ready soybean seeds he bought from a grain elevator. The seeds came from soybean growers who had harvested and sold second-generation seed to the elevator, which in turn sold them to Bowman.

It’s an argument Bowman lost in a federal district court and on appeal. They found that Bowman owed the company $84,456 as compensation for patent infringement.

But Bowman, now 75, raised a question in his petition to the Supreme Court for a review that piqued the justices’ interest. They ignored the solicitor general’s advice to reject the case and are set to hear oral arguments Feb. 19.

The Office of the Solicitor General, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Software Alliance and the American Soybean Association, among others, have lined up in support of Monsanto’s argument that a decision for Bowman could undermine patent protections for man-made cell lines, nanotechnology, electronic software development and other self-replicating products.

Bowman has the support of the National Farmers Union, Center for Food Safety, American Antitrust Institute, the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association and the Public Patent Foundation. The groups say a court decision in favor of Monsanto will give patent holders undue control in the distribution and use of their products. Competition, they argue, will suffer.

Lawyer Mark P. Walters, a Seattle patent attorney who worked his way through law school in a university seed lab, will make the arguments for Bowman. It will be his first appearance before the high court. To fight back, Monsanto has brought out President Bill Clinton’s former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman.

Test of Patent Law

This is the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed a Monsanto lawsuit against a farmer for alleged violations of company restrictions on using the progeny of patented seeds to produce additional crop. Generally, the cases end when Monsanto wins in the lower courts.

There will be no discussion of “Frankenfoods,” the pejorative term opponents of genetically modified crops often use to describe products by Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta. Nor will the case turn on genetically modified organism proponents’ arguments about the benefits to food production of having herbicide resistant food crops.

The case revolves around federal patent law and what limits apply. Bowman argues that he followed the restrictions he agreed to in the technology licensing agreements he signed when he bought Roundup Ready seeds when he planted his first soybean crop each season. Under those agreements, Bowman says, the patent and contract restrictions on harvesting seed for planting were in force.

But he draws the line at bulk commodity seeds — a grab bag of soybean seeds — he bought more cheaply from a local grain elevator for several years for late-season plantings. Bowman says he chose the commodity seeds because late-season planting is a greater gamble because of unpredictable weather and he wanted to limit his investment. When he harvested and sold crops, he saved some of the seed for subsequent planting.

The elevator did not segregate Monsanto seeds and Bowman ended up with Roundup Ready seeds. In court documents, he said he had expected the bag to include such seeds and had raised seedlings whose resistance he tested by spraying with weed killer. Over nine years, he culled and perfected the quality of seeds he used for the late-season plantings.

Bowman argues that Monsanto’s patent right was exhausted with the seed sale to the farmers who sold their seed to the grain elevator.

Walters dismissed claims that a victory by his client would broadly endanger patent protections for self-replicating technologies, calling them “completely exaggerated.”

“No other self-replicating technology is distributed like seeds,” he said. “There is no other self-replicating technology that is going to be dumped into a grain elevator mixed with everybody else’s production and then available for sale to the public.”

He said most self-replicating technologies are distributed under tight restrictions.

Walters said there are strong parallels between Bowman’s case and one involving a computer company that prevailed in a 2008 Supreme Court decision. The court found that the company did not violate a chip maker’s patent rights when it bought the company’s product from a third party and combined them with other components to make computers. The court said the patent holder’s restrictions on the computer chip use ended with the sale.

“Monsanto is saying the [rights to] subsequent generations are not sold so you can’t exhaust them. We’re saying like the method is embodied in the computer chip, the subsequent generations are embodied in that first generation. When you sell that first generation, you’re not only selling that generation but the ability to use that seed to make other generations,” Walters said.

“Just like when you sold the computer chip, you sold not only the chip but the ability to use that chip to practice the method,” Walters said.

Not so, Monsanto’s general counsel David F. Snively says. The company’s patent protections do not end with a sale. The engineered trait, which the company has invested millions of dollars in creating, is carried in harvested seeds and continues to provide resistance to pesticides if planted.

The fact that Bowman got the seed from a grain elevator and not Monsanto or an approved distributor changes nothing, Snively says. The company allows growers who have signed technology agreements to sell their harvest for animal feed or other products. The agreements expressly prohibit the farmers from saving seed from their harvests to produce new crops.

“The patent law in this country individually gives you the right to regulate the sale of an article, the making of an article,” Snively said. “Clearly, the patent law doesn’t authorize an evasion of those patent rights by sourcing the materials from somewhere else.”

He likened it to claiming that a private sale of a computer operating system enables the buyer to make copies for a commercial basis.

Snively said Monsanto imposes what it considers to be reasonable limits on replanting of its patented seeds to keep farmers “from going off and taking the technology as if it is their own and going into business.”

The company believes it will win in the Supreme Court, he said, adding that a loss would affect not only his industry but also research universities and technology companies.

“We’re completely confident that the court is going to sort through this and define intellectual property rights in a way so that all farmers know where everybody stands on this,” he said.

Read original here: http://www.rollcall.com/news/farmers_use_of_modified_seeds_reaches_supreme_court-222292-1.html?pg=3

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9.

As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court’s decision to review Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.

On Feb. 15, all nine justices will gather in conference to review whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void.

The Supreme Court‘s website shows that docket file no. 12A606 was originally denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, on Dec. 13. On Jan. 9, Chief Justice Roberts sent Dr. Taitz’s application to the full court for a review scheduled for Feb. 15.

Despite the lack of exposure from the mainstream media, the issue appears to have gained some steam among conservative bloggers. On Jan. 9, New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi suggested that the president’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, may have played a role in removing birther evidence from Barack Obama‘s passport records.

It appears that in 2008, a State Department insider was simultaneously employed by Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va. (then headed by Mr. Brennan) and was reprimanded for accessing (and possibly altering) Obama’s passport records.

On Wednesday, Dr. Orly Taitz, who represents the birther cause, posted the following on her website:

The case . . . provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.

The Supreme Court reviews about 10,000 petitions annually in regular conferences. About 100 are selected for further judicial consideration. In this filtering process, the votes of four justices are needed to advance a case. On her website, Dr. Taitz argues that Obama has used false identification, an alias, a fake Social Security number, forged birth certificates and Selective Service applications. [ See a comparison of a regular birth certificate versus one submitted by Barack Obama in this photo. ]

Among the aliases Obama allegedly used are Barry Soetoro (used while teaching law at the University of Chicago) and Harrison J. Bounel. Birthers contend that by entering Obama’s claimed Social Security number (042-68-4425) into background check systems, the name Harrison J. Bounel shows up in search results. Forgery of government documents is considered a felony.

This is not the first time that Obama has had to contend with the birther issue. On Aug. 21 2008, Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to become president. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and that the “Certification of Live Birth” on Obama’s website is a forgery.

The lower federal court dismissed the complaint as “unworthy of further discussion”. Soon after, Berg filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was denied by Justice David Souter in Nov. 2008. A second petition was denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A third petition was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the high court rejected the writ of certiorari on Jan. 12, 2009, just eight days away from Obama’s first inauguration as the nation’s 44th chief executive.

A team of forensic experts organized by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio have looked into Obama’s birth certificate. In July 2012, Arpaio told Fox News his team’s conclusion that Obama’s birth certification is “definitely fraudulent”. After months of investigation, his forensic investigators had discovered code errors, computer-generated marks, and manipulated seals on the document.

In April 2011, the White House retracted the Hawaii certificate and replaced it with a long form version. Around the same time, business tycoon Donald Trump sent a team of investigators to the state of Hawaii to question Obama’s real place of birth.

Said Trump:

He [Obama] spent $2 million in legal fees trying on to get away from this issue, and if it weren’t an issue, why wouldn’t he just solve it? I wish he would because if he doesn’t, it’s one of the greatest scams in the history of politics and in the history, period. You are not allowed to be a president if you’re not born in this country. Right now, I have real doubts.

The issue gained steam in the midst of a highly contentious election year as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gained favor among the voting public. In May 2012, the president’s former literary agent Acton & Dystel produced a previously unpublished leaflet stating that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”. The promotional booklet was written in 1991 when Obama was at Harvard Law School. It was intended to be part of an Obama autobiography but the project was cancelled.

In Oct. 2012, just days before November presidential elections, Mr. Trump offered to donate $5 million to Obama’s chosen charity if the commander-in-chief would disclose his college and passport records. Trump had hoped that the disclosures would shed light on where Barack Obama was born, his citizenship status, and whether or not he was admitted to college and law school as a foreign exchange student. President Obama ignored Trump’s challenge in media interviews and refused to release the requested records.

However, comedian Bill Maher did issue a challenge to Mr. Trump to produce his birth certificate in exchange for $5 million donated to the latter’s favorite charity. Maher made the offer on Jan. 7 on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno”. On Tuesday, the real estate tycoon produced a birth certificate showing that he was born in New York City. Trump’s lawyer then issued a letter asking the HBO host to make good on his $5 million offer.

Attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Trump’s birth certificate, demonstrating that he is the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan. Please remit the $5 million to Mr. Trump immediately and he will ensure that the money be donated to the following five charities in equal amounts: Hurricane Sandy Victims, The Police Athletic League, The American Cancer Society, The March of Dimes, and The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Read original here: http://www.examiner.com/article/supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-obama-s-alleged-forged-documents


  • Your support in the Liberty Beacon will be appreciated