Are all of the federal judges now scofflaws also?

SHOULD JUDGE SUSAN BOLTON HAVE HEARD THE ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW CASE?

by jtx

John Marshall was Secretary of State under President John Adams as well as the longest-serving Supreme Court Chief Justice, serving as such from 1801 to 1835.

(Aug. 1, 2010) — I’ve recently sent a couple of emails to Governor Jan Brewer of AZ with the last one reading:

I’ve emailed you before that Judge Susan Bolton acted in violation of Article III of the Constitution in the dispute between the US and AZ which – per the black letter law of our land – should have been taken up under the original jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court (not the Federal District Court).

Certainly Judge Bolton should have known this and acted accordingly. Since she chose to ignore the law, I would urge you to seek sanctions or impeachment of the judge, as clearly a simple reprimand is not sufficient.

In fact, since the preponderance of evidence now shows that we now have someone who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies, I would urge you not only to seek a SCOTUS hearing of original jurisdiction on the SB1070 matter, but to ALSO ask SCOTUS to furnish the appropriate rulings/orders to seek discovery of complete early life records on Obama to include not only his original 1961 long-form birth certificate but the many other documents that may (or may not) support that information. Clearly you have standing to do that since if not legally eligible to hold the office, any laws or other orders the man gives are null and void – including his actions vs. AZ.

I – and MILLIONS of other Americans – believe this man is not legally eligible under Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution and should be required to comply with the Constitution which says “shall” in the cited article. The Supreme Court I believe can take such action under their Rule 17, if not under their normal proceedings. Please note that if you make this discovery effort, at least the two Obama-appointed justices should recuse themselves due to the obvious conflict of interest.

Should you need further legal guidance in the matter, I’d suggest you contact this website along with at least the Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner et al litigation:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

The first email contained much the same information except that it pointed out that Article III of the Constitution specifies that disputes like the one over SB1070 are given to the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, not the Federal District court. So that there was no mistake about how wrong Judge Bolton actually was, I included the quote in the opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1821 in the case Cohens v. Virginia when he said:

It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”

…and I continued to point out that in attempting to take jurisdiction as she did Judge Bolton was not only legally wrong but had committed (as Marshall said) “…treason to the Constitution…”

She should be severely sanctioned, if not impeached. This seems to be a very popular action among Federal judges these days.

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Editorials

15 Responses to Are all of the federal judges now scofflaws also?

  1. jlmealer

    Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM

    MEALER v GM-GMAC, et al is proof that the Federal Court system is owned and run by lobbyists. I have access to documents and special gifts from GM-GMAC, the UST, etc., for the flunky attorneys that hand their shaped/concept [of what legal docs in a lawsuit mean] to the crooked judges.

  2. jtx

    Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM

    Nice try Mick – but no!!

    The law you cite is merely one of the attempted end runs around the Constitution in trying to make it useless. Article III of the Constitution states:

    “… The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made , or which shall be made, under their authority … to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party …” and further goes on to state:

    “… In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appelate Jurisdiction …”.

    It is not within the purview of Congress to override or abrogate the words and clear meaning of the Constitution (no matter how hard and how often they try – as in the instance you cite). Absent a Constitutional Amendment, the statute you cite is clearly unconstitutional in attempting to give jurisdiction (and thereby political power) to one of the inferior courts which merely constitutes an attemp to make a Congressional grab of unauthorized (and unconstitutional) political power.

    I certainly hope that AZ takes the matter to SCOTUS on this basis as the congregational statute will most likely be struck down unless SCOTUS (for some reason) decides to participate in its own destruction by pulling its own teeth thereby allowing Congressional amendment of the Constitution at their whim – as you present.

    You seem to miss the whole idea of the Constitution as a contract between the three branches of the government and the people of the country. It’s time that that is rectified.

  3. Mick

    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 10:29 AM

    Supreme Court does not have exclusive Original jurisdiction
    USC28 1251(b):

    TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 81 > § 1251
    Prev | Next
    § 1251. Original jurisdiction

    (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
    (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
    (1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
    (2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
    (3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

    USC28 1331:

    TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1331
    Prev | Next
    § 1331. Federal question

    The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

  4. live oak

    Monday, August 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM

    I wrote an email to MG Vallely last night through his website. I’ll let all of you and Mrs. Rondeau know if I hear anything from him.

  5. rayhawkin

    Monday, August 2, 2010 at 1:54 AM

    i noticed that my last reply was not posted —i also noticed that all my advice to Gov. Brewer was polished and sent to her —that is o.k. as i had already sent her my thoughts and was thanked for them as i read this every site every day—i also think she needs to change attorneys. My idea was for her to use Donofrio–and Pidgeon —and Orly if she would join —then we may get somewhere—anyway, thanks for entertaining my thoughts and passing them on —don’t be bashful about sending my ideas along as we are all in this for the same reasons.—are we not?

  6. A pen

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 10:16 PM

    Each chip taken adds up. The constitutional questions of law are widely known now and have been addressed by several scholars and attorneys however the courts have made it quite clear they have no intention of allowing any question to be asked let alone be answered. Can it be that there is no attorney capable or competent enough to represent the people? I submit there are and it is the object of the courts to thwart their designs to reduce the constitution to just a piece of paper. The clock has nearly run out and will shortly following the elections. It will then be an entirely new situation if congress is put in a position where it must seek to usurp powers it does not have. About all we the people can do is ponder another avenue which will remove the obstacles placed between us and our law.

  7. Toria

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 8:31 PM

    Excellent, could not have said it better!

  8. 4score

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM

    Mrs. Rondeau: Indeed I did, TYVM!! I’m hoping that a governor of a state in active litigation with a state (and getting the ‘short end of the stick”) will speak up forcefully. Certainly they could not be denied “standing”.
    —————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Good. I believe a sitting governor would have original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, because a state, which is part of the union, would be contesting something which affects the entire union. That is the way I understand it.

  9. kenneth

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 5:39 PM

    If Gov. Brewer does not take on the question is the POTUS in fact legal to defend Arizona then she is failing in her duty.
    The judge, Susan Bolton, is beyond a doubt open to impeachment if not treason charges. If Gov. Jan does not follow though and take all action, I will start to think she has also been bought off and does not really want to win this case!!!!

  10. live oak

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 2:14 PM

    SCOTUS is completely worthless and everything is broken. We are already at war!!!!! The only thing that’s going to save this country are the Patriots! We have to stand up. It’s way past time. Enough talk!!!!! I think Major General Vallely should lead us into the fray. If we don’t stand up and fight it’s lost for good! If we don’t stand up and fight for our country we deserve what we get!!!!

  11. 4score

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 2:09 PM

    I would hope that Governor Brewer is able to read this bit of advice and takes heed.

    The fact that Obama has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies is, indeed, one of the keys for AZ to defend itself from the invasion from the south of its borders.

    If the man (and his DOJ lapdogs) pushing this invasion in order to build his (illegal) voter base is not a legitimate holder of the office, then all legislation – and other items such as Executive Orders – he has signed must be found to be null and void and that would include the legal opposition to AZ SB1070 that the US Government has put forth.

    SCOTUS Rule 17 is allowed under both Article III of the United States Constitution as well as Constitutional Amendment XI and the Rule says (in part):

    “Rule 17. Procedure in an Original Action

    1. This Rule applies only to an action invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution of the United States. See also 28 U. S. C. § 1251 and U. S. Const., Amdt. 11. A petition for an extraordinary writ in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction shall be filed as provided in Rule 20.

    2. The form of pleadings and motions prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is followed. In other respects, those Rules and the Federal Rules of Evidence may be taken as guides. … ”

    It would seem that this sort of extraordinary writ could certainly include one of mandamus requiring the person who has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies now do so via appropriate discovery controlled by the Supreme Court.

    Recusal of the Justices (perhaps 2) emplaced on the Court by the man whose eligibility is in question (and in doubt) should certainly recuse themselves to obviate any possibility of conflict of interest on their part.

    If AZ appeals in the normal manner through the Federal Appeals Court they are, in effect, agreeing with the Federal Government that the Federal District Court (judge Bolton) has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the case … which I believe is in serious doubt.

    Sounds good to me … how about it, Gov. Brewer??? Is anyone in contact with you monitoring this news web site???
    ———————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I think you should send your comment to her spokesperson.

  12. 12thGenerationAMERICAN

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM

    “Should Barry/Steve/Obama even be Potus?”

    Maybe?!!?

    Barry Soetoro – POTUS Piece Of Totally Usless Scum!?!!?

    “scum” was not my first choice though! {:>) Just respecting John and Sharon’s policy!
    —————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thanks.

  13. Richard Bauer

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM

    Good morning,Mrs. Rondeau, Excellent! I truly hope the good Governor has the “sand” to follow this through, as well she must………..The day I estranged myself from my sister, an Obama supporter, was Jan. 20, 2009. the day the usurper was selected….in my parting shot to her, I told her “the Constitution and Bill of Rights no longer existed” and in retrospect, I just didn’t think the country would deteriorate as bad and as fast as it did when I said that. When one compiles the many, many occasions in which the “former” Constitution has been violated………. such as the very fact that as long as he occupies the Presidential office in full contravention of the Constitution, he is “Illegitimate” as are all his pronouncements and edicts …… when you consider the appointment of Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State, again in full violation of the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 6 regarding her previous service a a sitting Senator……… when you consider the blatant violation of Constitutional Amendment 9, para. 7, when usurper Obama physically occupied the U.N.Council Chairman’s seat , as explained in this excerpt from http://www.infowars.com as follows:

    “Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the driver’s seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. The Financial Times says.”

    You well know of many countless other assaults by the usurper upon our precious Constitution. I guess since he is getting away with it on a seemingly daily basis, this poor excuse for a “judge” has also adopted the same philosophy.
    Thanks again for your fine and accurate work in the efforts at keeping this ship right side up………
    RichardL
    ————————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: You’re welcome. The examples of violations of the Constitution are seemingly endless.

  14. Richard Bauer

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 9:35 AM

    Good morning, Mrs. Rondeau

  15. Susan Grassroots

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 9:31 AM

    Again another legitimate salient point, among a growing list of should’s!

    Should Barry/Steve/Obama even be Potus?

    Should he have no less than 15 different issued SS#’s?

    Should Arizona be in the horrendous predicament of being INVADED from the south and the halls of Washington at the same time!?

    Should the Congress have ignored the American voice and passed death care legislation?

    Should the White house take over any more industries in their quest to bury Capitalism?

    Should the Black Panther voter intimidation case been thrown out of the DOJ, even after they were already found rightfully guilty?

    Should the Constitution be lining the sewers of Congress, the Oval office and the last bastion of American freedom, the Supreme Court?

    Should our current administration continue to insult our long time friends and allies while dallying and apologizing to those who either are the enemy or supporting the enemy?

    Should the JOINT CHIEFS stand up and DO SOMETHING?

    Should the American patriots SHUT-UP as our illegal gov’t continues to try and silence the truth?

    The best Should yet—should we hang the treasonous traitors in public?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>