Thursday, January 8, 2009

14,171 readers visited our blog today, I'll try to answer the questions and clarify

Over 14,000 visited the blog today, it means we are getting close to half a million citizens visiting the blog within a month. This is extremely important in order to bring awareness to the public. One down side, is that I need to answer a huge number of e-mails and phone calls, I am doing my best, I appreciate everybody's support and I apologise in that I cannot answer all the questions.
First in re. to military case. We were planning to file today in GA. A local attorney that was supposed to co-sign the papers has some personal problems. We need a local attorney in GA. Please contact me if you know of a GA attorney that can co-sign simply for the purpose of receipt of the documents from the court.

Now to the Supreme Court. I would like to explain that we didn't win the war yet. This is only a battle, but it is important. A number of people asked to explain, how is it different from previous cases. As you know, I referred the case to Chief Justice Roberts and he had two options: to deny or to distribute it to be heard by all 9 judges in a conference. He has chosen to refer the case to be heard at a conference of all 9 judges. Decision of the Chief Justice is important, as it is believed that a number of justices on the court follow his lead, media and legislature listen to what he has to say.
What about the date? From what I understand the conferences are scheduled every week once a week. Berg's case is scheduled for 9Th and 16s. The next available date was a week later, the 23rd and that's when the case was scheduled. I will see what happens tomorrow with the certification of the electoral vote. If one congressman and one senator objects, then both Berg's and my cases will become moot and the issue will be probably resolved in Congress and Senate. In case the electoral vote is confirmed, then I will send another letter to the Supreme Court, asking to move my case to an earlier conference on the 16Th. I need to explain that even if I am successful in moving it to the 16Th, it is not the final disposition of the case. After the case is heard at the conference by all 9 Justices, they vote. If 4 out of 9 vote for the case, they schedule the next step, the oral argument. If 5 out of 9 vote for the case at the oral argument, the case is won. The court needs to give the other party notice to prepare for the oral argument, which means that most likely even Berg's case that was scheduled for the 9Th and 16Th will not be heard before the inauguration. Even if it is heard before the inauguration, probably there will not be a final decision by the court before the inauguration. Most likely the case will be decided after the inauguration. Keep in mind Nixon was involved in Watergate before the election, however the decision of the Supreme Court to hand over the tapes came down after the election and Nixon was forced to resign. We have to look positively, we have to start with the premise that we have to win and work as hard as possible to achieve this goal. Fraud cannot prevail. We hope the decision will come before the inauguration, but if not, we will keep fighting until we win.
I got an email from one attorney, that is working on this case, saying that he didn't understand the message, that he understood it literally and I need to explain.( I will not post the name of this attorney). It seemed strange to me, that over 14,000 people: attorneys and lay people understood the message and this one attorney, working on the case didn't understand it, but let me explain. The Supreme Court usually does not provide explanations, why it acts in a certain way and at a certain time. Attorneys, analysts and lay people review the decisions of the Supreme court within the frame of what is happenings in legal and political arena in general and come up with analysis, as to what it means. For example, why did the court sit on Berg's case for two months and scheduled it the last moment before the inauguration with no time for oral argument and decision? Why did they schedule the actual case for the 9Th and it's more urgent part, the injunctive relief for a later date, the 16Th? A number of editorials were written, saying that by scheduling the case at a certain time the court is sending a message.
Similarly, what does it mean, that Chief Justice Roberts renders his decision one day before the certification of the electoral vote? If he were to deny it, he would send a clear message to Congress and Senate: "There is no merit in the case, go ahead and certify the vote." When he did not deny the case, but rather sent it to all 9 Justices to be heard at the conference, he is sending an opposite message. I hope this attorney and his assistant understood what I am saying.
Yet another question was asked, "could it mean, that by deciding to hear the case at the conference, Chief Justice Roberts simply wants to prevent me from shopping around and going to other Justices?" Theoretically everything is possible. Theoretically one can say that all 3 branches of our government were hypnotised and that is the reason why they didn't hear anything until now and don't want to hear anythinhg in the future. I hope this is not the case. Justices of the Supreme Court don't live in a vacuum. They surely read the AOL poll, showing that the majority of the public wants this issue investigated. They know that I filed the Keys case together with another attorney. They know that numerous members of the military have signed up to be represented as plaintiffs by me. They know that I will be coming to Supreme Court time and again demanding answers. They know that the number of my supporters is growing exponentially. I believe Chief Justice Roberts scheduled my case a week after Bergs for a reason. If the full Supreme Court does not rule favorably on Berg's case, my case will serve as an assurance policy aweek later. Why do I say that?
1. First of all my case does not have a problem of standing. My client Gail Lightfoot was a vice presidential candidate on the ballot. Four of my clients are electors, five out of seven have served in the military and some of them are subject to recall. They might be facing a charge of treason for following the orders of Commander in Chief who is not legitimate and who is loyal to another Sovereignty.
2. In my case the Chief Justice of the lower Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of California has denied the petition by writing only one word "Denied", therefor the Justices of the Supreme Court of the US are free to rule on my pleadings. In all the prior cases there were specific negative decisions written by lower courts that had to be overcome.
3. My case provides not only the argument of Kenya and Indonesia, but also Donofrio's argument, definitions of Natural born citizen, as it was when the Constitution was adopted, namely that one is a natural born citizen if one is born in the country to parents that are citizens. This definition by Emerich De Vattel was later echoed by John Jay and John A Bingham and resonated in Minor and Elg cases.
4. My case has remarkable precedents of Larry Holmes and Eldridge Cleaver, that were removed from the ballot by previous Secretaries of State of Ca, because they did not qualify. There birth certificate (original one) showed them younger then 35 y.o.
5. My State electors didn't have necessary certificates of electors.
6. Lastly, don't forget the dead elector, what are they going to do about that, remove her out of the grave and resuscitate?

At the end of the day all I can do is hope for the best. God's ways are unknown and the wheels of Justice turn slowly. I hope my case will be heard on the merit during the oral argument. I am not telling the court to decide in my favor, I am saying that all of these arguments have to be heard by each and every American citizen. The Supreme Court owes the American people an answer, who is this man, is he a citizen of Indonesia? Kenya? Great Britain? What is his legal name? Do we live in a Communist country or a dictatorship where the laws are never enforced? Or do we live in a country, where the courts decide based on the Constitution? The courts hear only one side of the story from our main stream media. It is up to you if the Justices hear your side of the story.
I hope I provided an answer that is comprehensive enough
Good night and God Bless