Spread the love

A Guest Editorial

Sometimes you just have to cut through the goobledy-gook legalese that is used by a crook to shroud the intent of his malice.  This is especially true when reading what the crook’s lawyer says about him in court.

In such cases it is easier to explain what is being said or argued in court, by dramatizing it and characterizing it with other words, as if one were a script writer for a drama which in decades future would make a full length feature about what is going on in our own day.

Today is one of those days.  And the Motion to Dismiss, filed by the Federal Attorney Generals representing Barack Hussein Obama in the case Keyes vs. Obama, in the Southern Division of the CA Federal District Court is one of those motions.

To put it politely. This motion is a Manifesto of Tyranny.

I say “manifesto” because in legalese it manifests the key arguments only a usurper and dictator and his followers would use to justify his theft of power and authority. (It also explains why no Federal Attorney Generals are investigating this issue — they are all insensitive to a crime of this magnitude.)

So, for those of you who are not lawyers, like myself, I will put the arguments in my own words, summarizing the thought and intent that seems to me to be present therein, with citations to the sections of the Motion, so that those of you with curiosity can read for yourselves what Federal Attorney Generals are claiming to defend Barack Obama.

Voters, Taxpayers, members of the Military, lawyers, all American citizens take note.

Because this Motion states in clear terms why Obama does not think you have any right to question his claim to power.

And if you don’t stand up and protest this Motion, you will have its legislative equivalent imposed on you before the next election.

What equivalent is that?

Tyranny, Dictatorship, and Totalitarianism, with a megalomaniac at the helm.

I will dramatize the arguments in the order in which they appear in the Motion as filed, on Friday, Sept. 4, 2009, in the case which was called Keyes et al. vs. Obama et al., but which now bears the name Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., vs. Barack H. Obama, et al..  After each dramatization, I will comment and then cite the page of the motion I am referring to.

1) The Constitution must be interpreted in such a way as to exculpate Obama in everything, because any other reading would be unconstitutional, since He is the very definition of justice and right, what he does is unimpeachable by any sane man or woman.

            This is the fundamental first tenent of the Creed of those who belong to the Church of Obama. It is also the implicit logic behind the Motion filed by Acting US Attorney George S. Cardona, and Assistant US Attorneys Leon W. Weidman, Roger E. West and David A DeJute. (Introduction, p. 8).  They do this by playing word games, calling the eligibility question a “political dispute” and claiming that the Constitution gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Electoral College and Congress in such disputes.  I won’t mention that they contradict themselves later on, when they claim that the voters in the general election also have this right.  No need to mention that “exclusive” and “jurisdiction” are nowhere found in Article II, nor in any other section of the Constitution or its Amendments regarding questions of eligibility and usurpation. On the contrary, the U.S. Constitution gives jurisdiction to federal courts in “all cases and controversies”.  But the law never stood in the way of a usurper nor a dictator, let alone his fawning lawyers.

2. The Federal Courts do not have the ability to decide cases of usurpation, so if this crime occurs, you must accept it, and shut up!

            The AGs ask dismissal of case on grounds that the plea to the court to determine eligibility on grounds of being nor not being a NBC is a “non justiceable political question”…YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS UP, these AGs are idiots…do they think Carter is also an idiot…the question of NBC has nothing to do with political rivalries, it is a Constitutional requirement of office, and determination of which is an objective question of law, not a political controversy….

3) No one has standing to bring suit against a Usurper, because everyone is equally harmed!

            As only a jack-ass needs an explanation of the absurdity of this argument, I won’t give one (cf. p. 11 ff.).

4) Since any challenges to the Messiah are dishonest, we can lie as much as we dare to defend him!

            The AGs then claim that Drake and Robinson have voluntarily dismissed the case, which is a blatant lie, as Carter’s in chambers order, cites them as having only asked the court to be represented by another attorney in the SAME action.

5) All reality as you know it, is merely your allegation and assertions; reality is what Obama says it its; you need to get used to it!

            The AGs then say that Keyes and Lightfoot’s presence on the CA ballot in 2008, is an “alleged” fact….guess they live to far from CA not to ask for a copy of the ballot in the last alleged 2008 election –Obama was allegedly elected you know….! (p. 12)

6) Any crime committed against Californian voters in a general election is of no importance, since you cannot win a general election with California alone!

            They begin by arguing the CA ballot and attempt to dismiss arguments about the CA ballot by turning the argument to the nation wide election, basically saying that whatever injury you suffer in CA has no import, because CA is not important….CA voters should hear this one! (p. 13)

7) Any disadvantage Obama’s political opponents suffering in the General election, through his fraudulent fundraising or invalid presence on the ballot, is no basis for these opponents to seek relief, because everyone was equally defrauded by Obama!.

            The AGs actually have the gall to claim that a political candidate who is competed against by bogus candidate suffers the same injury as the general public, and therefore is not entitled to seek court relief….! (This is the shoddiest AG reply I’ve seen yet, as it is replete with non sequiturs: p. 13)

8) Dear Members of the Armed Forces:  you guys are nothing better than slaves who must take orders like good little Nazis, and not ask questions as was done at Nuremberg, regarding the legitimacy of your orders!  Whether you have a usurper or not, you must obey him!

            They claim that having a usurper as your CO is not an injury in fact….! and thus openly admit that usurpation in their judgement is not a crime! And claim that chain of command is not a basis of legal action! (You cannot make this up: we need to let the rank and file military here this one: p. 13-14)

9) When there is a Usurper in power, it is not a crime to take monies he deals out unlawfully from the public treasury, so join in, in the rape of America!

            The AGs then say it is not theft to take monies from an illegitimate Federal Government, in which a usurper has the power of the purse, so long as you assert he is legitimately the President, because theft requires intent, and intent requires knowledge, and whatever you assert you know to be true, is true for you! — Wow! what a startling admission! (p. 15)

10) Dear Members of the Military: Go out and die for the Dictator you fools; it is just as patriotic as dying for a real POTUS!

            The AGs then claim that any injury a soldier might suffer from an illegal command, is not justiceable, because they are likely to suffer the same injury from a legitimate one! — (THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!—p. 16)

11) Obama as acting president is above the reach of the Federal Courts and cannot be commanded to release any documents that would prove his claim to be eligible!

            This claim led me to term this entire motion is a “Usurper Manifesto of de facto power vs. Constitutional law!” (p. 17)

12) If the Joint Session of Congress should appoint a Usurper, the Federal Courts must tacitly acquiesce to this coup-d’etat!

            This is what is apparent said, when the AGs claim the action is not justiceable because Congress alone has the power to adjudge eligibility alone! —This is a tyranny manifesto, not a court Motion! (p. 18)

13) Dear Voters:  If a usurper fools you at the ballot box, you must accept the consequences, you dumb, idiot, peon-chattel!

            This claim is made when the Motion cites voters has having the duty to question eligibility at the ballot box! (p. 19) — Where in the constitution do voters get that duty, I’d like to see the passage…this is an outright lie!  According to the Constitution, the Electoral College votes for the President, the voters only participate in the apportionment of the Electors.

14) Dear Voters: Yes, you got that right: Democratic appointees are wiser, more intelligent and better informed than you stupid ignorant jackasses, who are so easily duped!

            Claims that the Electoral college is composed of the most knowledgeable members of the electorate! (p. 19)

15) Accordingly if the Electoral college elects a monkey as U.S. President, you must accept it, because they alone have the right to interpret who is eligible!

            Here we have the standard progressive lie that liberals alone can tell you what words mean! (p. 18)

16) Might makes Right and CRIME interprets the Constitution! Obama has usurped power for 7 months, so get over it!

            Seems to be their next objection (p. 22) — Can you think that AGs whose duty it is to uphold the law, are in fact arguing as attorneys of mobsters do…! Even the Mafia has more shame than these apparatchiks…

17) Dear American Citizen:  You ignorant serf! take what master we give you! The Federal Government is your sovereign, bow down and kiss our boots!

            The AGs then argue that no court has the right to hear cases in which the eligibility of federal officers is questioned, and that only a Federal Agent can issue such a challenge; the common man has no right to question such things! (p. 23 ff.)

18) Don’t you dare charge Obama with a crime, if all he did was get a state official to commit it for him at his request!

            This is what is implicitly argued on p. 25.

19) Dear American Citizen:  You are nothing but an ignorant serf, and you have no right to ask for information which would prove Obama is who he claims to be! Especially if you do not ask him kindly, beforehand!  And even if he refused others the same requests! so line up in cue like good little serfs and wait your turn to be slapped in the face!

            The AGs then argue, that you cannot seek a Freedom of Information Act claim, unless you first make a FOIA request and get rejected, (p. 26 ff.)

20) Since Obama is above the law, this Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State are also immune from charges! And don’t you dare name his Empress or Vice-usurper!

            Or what the Goose thinks is good for himself, is good for the Ganders too! (p. 28-32).

In closing, The Post & Email wishes to inform its readers who are attorneys-at-law, that Dr. Orly Taitz has requested as many amicus briefs as possible in the action Barnet vs. Obama, which would argue against this Motion to Dismiss submitted by the US Attorneys.  Contact http://www.orlytaitzesq.com for more information.

Join the Conversation

No comments

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Nicely done, Mr. Charlton, and I especially agree with you when you say under #2 above that Obama’s ineligibility is “an objective question of law, not a political controversy.”

    I asserted the same at attorney Leo Donofrio’s website last night and he said no, there is a legitimate issue of separation of powers here. But I can read text, too, and I’m with you.

    This is a question of what the Constitution says and whether what the Constitution says matters a tinker’s damn. It is not a political question of “policy choices” as Obama’s lawyers and Donofrio claim. IMHO, of course.
    Mr. Charlton replies: First, I did not write this Editorial. But I will explain the point made in it, lest it be understood (as others also have done).

    The concept of a “political” controversy needs to be explained. The word “political” comes from the Greek, refering to what pertains to the city state; in English it has differeing senses, one of which regards the constitutional order of the nation; the other the disputes between what we call parties.

    In claiming that it is a non justiceable political question, the Defense argues that separation of powers prevents the Article III judiciary from intervening where the Constitution gives the Congress or Electors discretion to make the determination of eligibility.

    In saying it is not a political controversy, the guest writer is saying 2 things simultaneously: one, that to which you aver, namely that it has nothing to do with controversies between democrats and republicans; two, that it does not have to do with separations of powers; because the Judiciary has the duty to see that the other powers follow the objective requiremens of the supreme law of the land.

    This, the writer is employing a double entendre, as an oratorical effect to attack 2 misconceptions simultaneosly.

  2. I suppose it is asking way too much of you to actually read about what “non justiceable political question” means.


    Mr. Charlton replies: Considering the tenor of the rest of your post Joe, I thought you were a professor of Law at Purdue: since you are only an undergraduate student, you come on a twee bit too strong: an honest undergraduate, realizes that to engage in such legal commentary, you better know what you are talking about yourself. If, you were a law professor, I’d would have asked your permission to post your essay as a news item; because it would have been quite revealing of the low level of scholarship at Purdue. Since you are an undergrad, I’d thought I’d take the opportunity to further your education, by replying…something I never do to other ranters…

    If you don’t like the policy here for posting comments, maybe if you read it first, you’d realize that such a long essay is not allowed.

  3. Thanks for the post.
    I thought you might like to see this.

    When I saw this I couldn’t believe it.

    Reading the motion from the DOJ lawyers reads like a comic book.


    here is the PDF file. Start on page 12

    (“The [Electoral]

    College was created to permit the most knowledgeable members of the

    community to choose the executive of a nation.”). The

    Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the

    responsibility to select the President includes the authority to

    decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office

    because the examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an

    integral component of the electors’ decision-making process.2

    The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral

    College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate’s

    eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required,

    rests with Congress. Where no candidate receives a majority of the

    electoral votes, the Constitution commits to the House of

    Here is the footnote:

    2 Explaining this provision of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton

    stated that: “the people of each State shall choose a number of

    persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and

    representatives of such State in the national government who shall

    assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.”

    [emphasis added]. See Federalist Papers, No. 68.

    Note the following: “and vote for some fit person as President.”

    They are attempting to quote the Federalist Paper as LAW!

    There is nothing further from the truth. They are disregarding the “Constitutional Requirements” and attempting to
    enter written works of discussion as LAW!
    This is simply amazing!!!!!!


    Hamilton’s Understanding of the Electoral College

    Quote – Understanding is NOT law.



    Mr. Charlton replies: Even if one were to grant the propriety of such an appeal to Hamilton, one must note that he says, “Shall . . . vote for some fit person”…this is an absolute, imperative construction, therefore it posits not a right, but a duty, which must be observed; and hence argues against the Motion to Dismiss, wherein it claims that there is no justiceable review of such a vote! By “fit” (that is “suitable”, “fitting”, “meeting the requirements”), it implicitly refers to the conditions for eligibility.

  4. Excellent post.
    The same reasoning was behind SR511


    Mr. John Charlton replies: Nobarack08, your prestige goes before you, so I will permit this comment, even though from another, I would have judged that it is off topic…see the About page here, regarding comments…thanks for your work at your blog…I have often read it these last few months…