How to Gain Standing Regarding Obama

FIVE JURISDICTIONAL HURDLES

by Jedi Pauly

Article III of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to establish federal courts.

(Jan. 21, 2011) — I thought I might take this opportunity to explain to The Post & Email News readers why I agree with the dismissal of all of the court cases against Obama that have been dismissed so far. In so doing I will show you the level of competency among the attorneys who have filed cases regarding Obama’s eligibility to date. I will make you smarter than most attorneys who, due to their TITLE, are very overrated in people’s minds. Don’t get me wrong; I admire these attorneys for their Patriotism (assuming of course that is what is actually motivating them), but you must have both your head and your heart in the right place in order to solve any of the problems with our country by peaceful lawful means (exercising your right to petition your government for a redress of grievances).

I was taught in a law course that I once took, and every attorney I have ever talked to agrees that this is what they were taught in law school, and this is what all of the U.S. Supreme court cases support, that in order for a court to have jurisdiction to even hear your case, you must meet 5, that’s FIVE and only 5 jurisdictional hurdles. If you are missing even one of the five then the court must dismiss the case by their own rules which is what they are bound by. Here are the five jurisdictional areas that I have taken the liberty to break down and summarize according to my understanding, that one must overcome in order to have a case recognized by the courts. For reference one may examine these links: http://www.answers.com/topic/justiciability, http://freedom-school.com/jurisdictional-failings.pdf, or simply read through the Federal Rules of Procedure.

You MUST have all FIVE of these:

  1. The Court must have TERRITORIAL jurisdiction over all of the parties listed in a suit.
  2. The Court must have PERSONAL jurisdiction over all of the parties listed in a suit.
  3. The court must have SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over the issues being adjudicated. And such matters must be raised by the plaintiffs in their petition.
  4. There must be stated a specific non-general INJURY and an injuring party.
  5. The court must be able to provide a REMEDY that is within their powers to provide.

That is it. There are no other jurisdictional issues or areas. This is the sum total of all world-wide legal systems as concerns “standing.”  They are all the same.

If you are missing any one of the above five, then the court is legally bound to dismiss the case. Now let us apply these five simple legal principles that have been well-recognized for thousands of years in every legal jurisdiction ever invented by man, to the cases that have been filed so far regarding Obama and his legitimacy and you will see that none of these cases so far has ever even met one of these five hurdles, let alone all five. Examine:

1) The courts have no Territorial jurisdiction over the Office of President or over the ten square miles of Washington D.C.

2) The courts have no Personal jurisdiction over a sitting President. They cannot force him to respond unless he is sued for something that he did prior to becoming President that is not related to the official duties of the Office of President (this was decided in the famous Supreme Court case of Clinton v. Lewinsky).

3) None of the plaintiffs who have brought any of these suits have even raised the proper Subject Matter jurisdiction for the court. None of them have ever claimed the subject matter of Natural Law jurisdiction and the loss of natural sovereign political rights that are inherited from a sovereign citizen father and guaranteed to “natural born Citizen” as declared in Article II. Every petition so far has asked the court to take note of the subject matter of Positive Law political rights by claiming Obama was born elsewhere than Hawaii, or that Obama was not born with Both Parents and soil jurisdiction all unified at birth. These are not Natural Law arguments of inherited natural political rights of sovereignty. Their claims only raise questions of the Positive Law jurisdiction, and statutory authority, and “legal rights,” not Natural Rights.

Every attorney so far has claimed that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” which is only a legal right. None of them has properly raised the issue that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” which is a Natural Right that is inherited according to Natural Laws, and distinguished that from “natural born citizen” which is a legal right that is not inherited. Just read their petitions and the judges’ summations and judgments attached to the orders that dismiss these cases. The judges all make it clear that the petitioners bring their claims as statutory privileged “citizens of the United States” not as sovereign “Citizens of the United States.”  The petitioners claim that Obama is not a statutory privileged “citizen of the United States” or a statutorily defined “natural born citizen”, which is ridiculous because he is a statutorily defined “natural born citizen” due to either his mother (regardless of what the statutes say about her age, because the executive branch can waive statutory requirements and grant citizenship to whomever they please) or by Obama’s publicly-stated claim to Hawaiian birth. But he is not a “natural born Citizen” according to the Laws of Nature due to the inheritance from a citizen father of a natural political right of sovereignty which is what Article II is requiring by political context, which creates the office of President to be a sovereign office filled by a sovereign representative of the People who are themselves also sovereigns.

If you do not raise the correct Subject Matter jurisdictional issues and make a valid claim, then the courts are not bound to take the subject matter jurisdiction that you fail to raise into consideration. The rules of procedure bind the judges to consider rights that are not raised to be voluntarily waived and this is what both the rules of procedures and the Supreme court has determined. It is a result of the immunity that Judges have under the Positive Law jurisdiction of the courts. So, the one area of the five needed where the court might have had jurisdiction was never even raised properly by the petitioners, so the court has failed to have any subject matter jurisdiction to be recognized as a result of failure of the petitioners to raise the proper jurisdictional subject matter of Natural Rights. So we have failed the third test of jurisdictional standing. Moving on…

4) Due to 3) above, the petitioners failed to make a claim that is both a specific and non-general Injury (that is what the judges have said), and they fail to identify for the court a party that has injured them. Obama cannot injure you directly even if he is illegitimate. It is only those who enforce his decrees that can possibly injure you. So for example, Kerchner v Obama and Barnett v Obama fail to declare an injuring party. Obama cannot possibly be an injuring party. So we have failed test 4.

5) The Remedies sought so far have been in the form of seeking an advisory opinion on Article II “natural born Citizen,” which has been asked for by attorneys who don’t seem to even understand the Constitution and don’t seem to have any clue what a “natural born Citizen” is or means, and also don’t realize that the court is not even bound to give advisory opinions on its meaning, so there is no remedy that the court can provide there. You are supposed to already know the law when you get to the court. The court is just supposed to recognize what the law is that you show it, and rule according to what the law is, not what they suppose or the petitioners suppose it to be. The other remedy sought has been the removal of Obama which the court cannot provide, either, because of 1), and 2) above.

As you can see, these attorneys cannot even get one of the five jurisdictional hurdles of standing figured out, let alone all five of them, and thus craft a petition that passes entry level. Isn’t this rather pathetic? So, the next time you want to direct any vitriol towards the government, the courts, the legal system, or the judges over the handling of Obama cases, perhaps you will direct your emotions towards those that are most deserving of rebuke which is those attorneys who have proven their worthlessness regarding their capability of crafting a proper case. Perhaps the $20,000 sanction against one attorney for filing a frivolous case is understandable?

Perhaps you will now understand why I have no problem with our government and law and why I admire it so much. Perhaps you will gain an even better appreciation as to who the authorities in these matters are (the ordinary people with common sense and knowledge of Natural Rights and Legal Rights) who have superior understanding of the jurisdictional issues and authorities and can prove their case.

————————

Editor’s Note: An outline of U.S. courts can be found here.

34 Responses to "How to Gain Standing Regarding Obama"

  1. Georgiaboy61   Friday, October 28, 2011 at 2:36 AM

    Jedi Pauly, re: “So, the next time you want to direct any vitriol towards the government, the courts, the legal system, or the judges over the handling of Obama cases, perhaps you will direct your emotions towards those that are most deserving of rebuke which is those attorneys who have proven their worthlessness regarding their capability of crafting a proper case.” Nonsense. The vitriol being directed at the aforementioned parties is entirely deserved. In terms of the law, we have been a post-constitutional republic for quite some time now. The author demonstrates this point by quickly taking refuge in legal jargon and minutiae instead of arguing the facts based on evidence. Remember, the law is just as corruptible as any other human institution, perhaps more so. What the legal doctrine and the law permit, is not necessarily just or right. In fact, when the law and ethical right diverge, it is the duty of the just human being to oppose such a statute.

    If our laws and justice system have become so dysfunctional and schlerotic that they cannot find a way to prosecute such an obvious criminal as Obama, then perhaps it is time we the people clean our legal house, and find ourselves some judges and attorneys who will actually uphold the law under the constitution, instead of playing semantical games with it. What is increasingly clear to this reader, is that while once we were a nation of laws, now we are only a nation of men.

    Our political, cultural and economic elites hold themselves effectively above the law, and not subject to it, even as they insist that the rest of us follow these rules to the letter. Such behavior is consistent with that of totalitarian societies, or ones rapidly becoming so. Our govt. – including its courts – has become an administrative dictatorship.

    Lastly, I ask you – if the individual citizen of this nation does not having “standing” under which to question the right of our leaders to lead us, who the hell does? Any jurist or system of law that denies such recognition of our rights is corrupt and should be replaced.

  2. Jedi Pauly   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 3:09 PM

    Certainly;

    Thank you for your questions and clear formulations.

    Territorial Jurisdiction Question

    Here is my understanding. The State courts have territorial jurisdiction over State territory. The Federal Courts have no territorial jurisdiction over any State territory except where the State has granted territorial jurisdiction. They have total jurisdiction over federally owned territories and possessions, neither of which include Washington D.C.

    Congress has exclusive territorial jurisdiction over Washington D.C. They have their own municipal government and municipal courts that are superior even to the Supreme Court, which has no territorial jurisdiction over any of Washington D.C. That is my understanding, but it does not at all imply that Obama is above the law. It is just that the Supreme Court has no territorial jurisdiction over Washington D.C. so they cannot issue an arrest warrant for the President, for example. The D.C. municipal courts could, however. They could even arrest the Supreme Court Justices, or a member of Congress, or the President!

    Next question regarding if Obama is above the law.

    No. However he is not answerable to the Supreme Court except in very limited circumstances. He must answer to Congress. Both Congress and the People can hold Obama to be under the law but each must do it within their own authority. For example:

    Congress can just have a trial and remove Obama if they would chose to exercise their authority to remove a sitting President.

    The People are not empowered directly to remove Obama since that power is reserved to Congress alone but the People can remove the power and authority of the office of President by asserting their sovereign political rights through the courts for an injunctive relief to prevent the loss of sovereign political rights caused by any government agent (besides Obama) who tries to apply any statute signed by Obama, or any executive order or rule whose authority comes from Obama. For example, you could seek an injunction to prevent the Health care bill that was signed from being implemented because Obama does not represent you, since you are a “natural born Citizen” who inherited your sovereign political right from a citizen father as in Article II, and Obama is only a “natural born citizen” which means one who only got his political rights as a privilege of soil and not as a natural sovereign inherited birthright, so he has no authority to make bills into laws that you are bound to obey without your permission. If the government agent insists and tries to force you, then they cause you an unlawful injury and they can be sued personally for exceeding their authority and acting under the color of law. In this way the People can neutralize the power and authority of the office of President and reassert their sovereign political authority and right to be governed by a representative President who was also born inheriting a sovereign political right due to being born to a citizen father. This is the identified legal recourse to standing that I have discovered to be the correct lawful way to deal with an illegitimate President.

    Restating then:

    1) Congress can remove him.

    2) The People can Lawfully REFUSE to obey anything signed or ordered by Obama by asserting your sovereign political status that was inherited due to being born to a sovereign citizen father. Any government agent that tries to force you to obey against your will commits a criminal or civil wrong against you and they are not immune from being held accountable in court for both damages and injunctive relief (restraining orders). I would send them letters explaining this and just put them on notice and then you have proof of their intent to disobey the law and willfully injure you should they not obey the law or refuse to respond.

    3) By 1) an 2) above the President is not above the law.

    I hope this helps to clear things up.

  3. Jedi Pauly   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 2:40 PM

    Here Harry. Investigate this link and you will discover for yourself that I have not originated anything. I am only relating what the Supreme Court has already explained.

    Link http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/AppendixC.htm

  4. Harry H   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 9:47 AM

    Jedi Pauly seems to be misguided to the point of obsession with his pet theory about the difference between a lower-case “c” and a capital “C”; he has worked that vein to exhaustion but will probably keep pounding away at it.

    I agree with P-Oed Vietnam Vet that we do not have a president. We have a president-elect who is not qualified for the office, and per the 20th Amendment Congress can declare him to be unqualified and name an acting president. (I admit this could be considered my pet theory, but Congress has not forfeited its right and duty to vet a president-elect. It can still exercise its lawful authority to do so, IMHO.)

  5. Harry H   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 9:29 AM

    Hear, hear. Pauly, please get off your pet-theory hobby horse and stop muddying the water.

  6. Kevin J. Lankford   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM

    To Mr. Apuzzo:
    I certainly like your opinions and reasoning much more than jedi’s. he seems to be stuck
    on procedure,standing, and some confusing dual definition of “natural born”, and merits
    of a case seem to have little relevance to him. Perhaps he has some citizenship issues
    himself.

    I have no experience in higher learning,so I have to keep reviewing Article III of
    our Constitution, That is constantly refered to as establishing “standing”, and I just do not
    see it. In fact, the way I understand it, our courts are obliged to consider the merits of any
    case presented to them. Anyhow I do not believe your case, or any of the many others
    were dismissed on procedural error or standing. These are just obvious pretexts in their
    concerted effort. Of course, I believe you are aware of that.

  7. RacerJim   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 8:34 AM

    Lest we forget that former U.S. Senator Obama also committed treason under the Logan Act prior to becoming POTUS.

  8. Robert Laity   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 7:58 AM

    “We the People” already HAVE Standing. It is being illegally denied by the courts.

  9. Robert Laity   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 7:57 AM

    Let me rephrase that incompetent in the Law.

  10. Robert Laity   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 7:56 AM

    I strongly advise readers to discount Pauly as legally incompetent.

  11. Larry M. Meyer   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 7:23 AM

    H.R.-0001/.44/#29/S&W~”The Congressional Accountability Act of 2011″
    “WE the People, in or to form a MORE Perfect Union~~~~~~~~~~!!

  12. Troy   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 1:21 AM

    Another pile of complete nonsense from Pauly.

  13. 1776reloaded   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 12:31 AM

    Jedi Pauly,

    One more thing, I Pray The Post & Email will stop paying you for your articles with the donations they receive, if that happens to be the case. I believe those funds could be spent more wisely elsewhere.
    ——————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The Post & Email does not pay for editorial submissions, of which the article in question is one.

  14. 1776reloaded   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 12:16 AM

    ” Jedi Pauly ”
    Did your parents give you that name?

    Why do you despise Christians? What made you become an Atheist?

    Well at least you understand that Barack Obama is a USURPER and is ineligible for POTUS and your speaking out about it.

    The Rights of the fathers (BLOODLINE) past to the children originated from the BIBLE.

    Started with Adam which was in effect untill the final lamb was sacrificed (JESUS CHRIST). Now one must REPENT and get Baptised into Christ to enter into the Kingdom. Acts 2:38. However that doesn’t qualify one as a Natural Born Citizen.

  15. kingskid   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 11:57 PM

    Jedi, the more you write about this subject, the more ridiculous and arrogant you sound. If you have such superior knowledge and judgement (with your ONE law course under your belt, wow) about the obamanation, where the heck is your lawsuit? Sorry bud, you come off as just a big bag of hot air.

  16. Leo Patrick Haffey   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 11:40 PM

    You are correct. The Grand Jury is the best way to bring BHO to Justice.

    http://standupamericaus.com/our-privilege-our-right-and-our-duty-civilian-grand-jury:33320

  17. jetstream   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 11:24 PM

    This has to be the most ridiculous pile of hyperbole and misinformation I have ever read here. I’m truly disappointed that Sharon would allow this self-styled Jedi to lower the level of quality at her website by giving him a platform for his atrocious attempt at legal expertise.

  18. One Pissed-off Vietnam Vet   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 10:41 PM

    ” . . . I have no problem with our government and law and why I admire it so much . . .”.
    Okay, so this dude who calls himself Obama is an illegal immigrant and is a felon for having multiple Social Security numbers, and he had all those Social Security numbers because he was moving money around so as to not attract attention, am I right so far?
    And he’s moving this money around, laundering this money, for what? Hamas? Or maybe petro dollars are being imported to pay for a future political campaign, with me so far?
    And somebody comes along and says “This ain’t right, Folks” and all that you can come up with is that she deserves a $20,000 fine?
    Oh yes, isn’t the law and those who enforce it just wonderful? Here we have the top law enforcer, Attorney General Eric Holder, so corrupt that he won’t arrest a person who has used THIRTY-NINE different Social Security numbers.
    Pauly, so you took a law class, I did too, but what I came away with is that Obama is nothing but a two-bit crook and you’re letting him walk. So you would let Ted Bundy go free because, what, a ‘t’ wasn’t crossed or an ‘i’ dotted?
    The Law is supposed to be about justice, not some anal hang-up.
    According to you, this is a Catch 22 scenario: person took the Oath so he is President but the person who took the Oath was not qualified to take the oath so he was never the President in the first place, but you don’t care if he was qualified or not.
    I got news for you, Jedi Pauly, you don’t have a President, none of us do. Go ahead and quote verse and scripture, fact of the matter is that an honorable army officer is sitting in prison because he questioned the, as the Rev. Manning so aptly puts it, the Long Legged Mack Daddy Obama.
    ——————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I did not get the impression that Mr. Pauly was implying that Obama should walk free. The position of The Post & Email is that if he is not a natural born Citizen, as millions strongly suspect and evidence indicates, then he should be removed from office and pay for his crime of fraud against the American people. If he proves to be a natural born Citizen but lied about his parentage in his birth story, that is fraud also and he should meet the same fate, as should everyone who aided and abetted him to enter the White House.

  19. 4Freedom   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 9:32 PM

    There are NO issues of standing in the CRIMINAL courts as opposed to the civil courts.
    EVERY major presidential scandal of the last fifty years was investigated in the criminal system not the civil court (lawsuit) system: Watergate, Whitewater, and Iran-Contra, just to name a few.
    If Barack Obama committed election fraud, forgery or perjury,those are crimes that should be investigated by grand juries in any jurisdiction where Obama’s name was on the ballot.

  20. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 9:11 PM

    To Mr. “Jedi Pauli,”

    I will address your points briefly. I will not go into all the legal details of the Kerchner case because I do not think it is necessary to show that you are wrong in what you write. You continue to attack me, my work, and the Kerchner case for some unknown reason. The last time you attacked me, you said you thought I was Dr. Conspiracy. But now you are back at it in your grand pseudo scientific style.

    You state:

    “You MUST have all FIVE of these:
    The Court must have TERRITORIAL jurisdiction over all of the parties listed in a suit.
    The Court must have PERSONAL jurisdiction over all of the parties listed in a suit.
    The court must have SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over the issues being adjudicated. And such matters must be raised by the plaintiffs in their petition.
    There must be stated a specific non-general INJURY and an injuring party.
    The court must be able to provide a REMEDY that is within their powers to provide.
    That is it. There are no other jurisdictional issues or areas. This is the sum total of all world-wide legal systems as concerns “standing.” They are all the same.”

    I will now address you points:

    Territorial jurisdiction: This was not an issue in the Kerchner case. The defendants did not raise it as a defense and correctly so. The court also found no problem here.
    Obama, Congress, Cheney, and Pelosi can all be sued in the Third Circuit where all the Kerchner plaintiffs live. The Rules of Civil Procedure designate where one can sue the government and its agents and I followed those rules.

    Personal jurisdiction: This was not an issue in the Kerchner case. The court acquires personal jurisdiction over the defendants when they are properly served in accordance with due process. I properly served all the defendants pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants did not raise it as a defense and correctly so. The court also found no problem here.

    Subject matter jurisdiction: This is where standing came in. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found no Article III standing. The court said that the Kerchner plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact. I will discuss this point in the next heading.

    Non-general injury and an injuring party: As I have stated above, this is part of standing and so under your scheme belongs as a part of subject matter jurisdiction and not as a separate category. As we all know, the courts found that plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact. Hence, it found no standing. I argued that the plaintiffs did suffer an injury in fact. The court did not agree with us. The court said that the Kerchner plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact because they like all other Americans would be injured if Obama is not eligible to be President. It said that if all Americans are injured, then the court has no jurisdiction and the case belongs with Congress and the voting booth. Of course we know that Congress said that only the courts could resolve the eligibility issue. I argued that if my clients were injured, it did not matter how many other people were also injured. I also argued that in a Constitutional Republic we cannot resolve questions of constitutional interpretation and meaning in the voting booth. If the court found that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact, of course it will also find that there was no “injuring party.” Hence, it is superfluous to argue about an “injuring party” when injury in fact is already a requirement.

    Remedy: This is also part of standing and so also belongs as a part of subject matter jurisdiction and not as a separate category. The Kerchner court never reached the issue of remedy, for it found no injury in fact. Finding no injury in fact, it is not necessary for the court to analyze remedy. In any event, I adequately presented the requested remedy which was injunction, declaratory relief, mandamus relief, and quo warranto relief, all proper remedies in such a case. I showed how Obama was not adequately vetted by anyone during the election process, including the media, the political institutions, the Electoral College, and Congress. I argued that Congress violated the Twentieth Amendment by failing to assure my clients through adequate investigation and hearings that Obama was eligible for the offices of President and Commander in Chief. I argued that Obama and Congress violated my clients’ unalienable Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and their First and Ninth Amendment rights for allowing a person to occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief who never proved he was eligible for those offices, never conclusively proved he was born in the United States, and that in any event, cannot be eligible because he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born. I argued that Congress violated my clients’ equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment for investigating the “natural born Citizen” status of John McCain but not that of Barack Obama. As part of the declaratory action, I asked that the court declare what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, declare that Obama does not meet that definition, and provide the definition and its findings to Congress so Congress could take appropriate action against Obama. As part of the mandamus relief, I asked that the court order Obama to produce his contemporaneous 1961 long-form birth certificate and that Congress take appropriate action against Obama based on the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendants never argued that the courts could not provide the remedy that the Kerchner plaintiffs requested and the courts never made any such finding. The District Court dismissed the Kerchner case on political question and standing grounds (both Article III and prudential standing). The Third Circuit dismissed it on Article III standing grounds. No court ever reached the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. No court ever even discussed plaintiffs’ argument regarding violation of their unalienable Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property when it analyzed whether plaintiffs had standing.

    In short, you really have it all wrong. You attempt to have your general unfounded comments cover all the eligibility attorneys and all their cases. Your argument has no basis in law or fact. You fail to address the particulars of any one case and especially the Kerchner case. You really should reconsider coming out with such articles which really put into question the credibility of the eligibility issue, the writers of such articles, and that of those who publish such articles. I hope that you will refrain from such writings in the future.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    January 21, 2011

  21. Metropolisonthehill   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 8:18 PM

    Its time for Lucas Smith to be heard by Congress.

  22. Leo Patrick Haffey   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 8:07 PM

    I hasten to note that in January of 2009, I advised some of the most prominent Eligibility Attorneys that they should file their cases directly with SCOTUS invoking the Original Jurisdiction Clause of Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

    It is noteworthy that it has been over two years since I first began to write about the Citizens Grand Jury Process and Original Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of cases against Barack Hussein Obama and, to date, BHO’s lawyers have never been able to refute my Constitutional Theories.

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/07/taking-aka-obama-directly-before-scotus.html

  23. One Pissed off Vietnam Vet   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 7:44 PM

    “I have no problem with our government and law and why I admire it so much.”

    Yes, our judicial (justice is hardly served) system is there to protect the criminal. To hell with all of us that are being abused by the rulers.

    Why am I so pissed off? Because I enlisted thinking that I was defending a country that followed laws. Boy, was I wrong. When a senator can commit murder (Teddy boy) and not even spend a second in jail we have a major problem.

    The heck with the judicial system. We need to take to the streets and take back our country.

  24. raicha   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

    I think maybe the headline is wrong. This article states standing may be claimed under natural law principles, but that you can never get that far unless you have territorial and personal jurisdiction. So, how is it possible to gain standing regarding Obama?

  25. Kevin J. Lankford   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM

    A person cannot be just a little bit natural born. Your explanation is just more subterfuge. A crime has been committed and has been reported on every level possible. The injured party is the Constitution Of The United States Of America, and all who expect it to be upheld.

    Every congressman, judge, and officer of the military are granted jurisdiction in their oath to uphold the Constitution. This situation could have been addressed long ago if they had chose to do so.

    I am sure all the judges who have refused to hear these cases on the merits appreciate your understanding and support, but only a fool could believe they were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, or improper procedure.

  26. Leo Patrick Haffey   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 6:24 PM

    Another thought provoking article by Mr. Pauly. I hasten to add that Mr. Pauly did give Attorney Phil Berg high marks for his legal work in a previous article.

    The Standing problem is one of the primary reasons that I urged all the major Eligibility Lawyers to focus on Grand Jury Indictments in Febuary of 2009.

  27. michaelsr   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM

    Does the term Territorial jurisdiction somehow have a legal meaning diametrically opposed to its plain meaning? Without resorting to something as tedious as actually looking up its definition, number one – Territorial jurisdiction – would seem to imply that the courts have no jurisdiction over the Office of President sitting within the area of Washington, D.C. My understanding of the Constitution indicates that the courts do, in fact, have jurisdiction over the seat of government, no matter where it happens to be situated and thus over any elected official (or purported elected official) serving within the seat of government.

    By the same token, number two seems to indicate that a sitting President is somehow above the laws which govern all the rest of us. Just on the surface, that seems totally out of character to the tone in which the rest of the Constitution is written.

    Since I am obviously out of step with the intended line of reasoning, Mr. Pauly, and since the answers to these two points are not apparent within the article, perhaps you could clarify in a comment why I am mistaken.

    Beyond the above, thank you very much, Mr. Pauly, for a very thought-provoking article.

  28. Heidi   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 4:13 PM

    Perhaps you didn’t study Leo Donofrio’s case which reached the Supreme Court before the inauguration. Points #1 and #2 were covered. Point#3 was also covered as the subject matter was natural law. Donofrio did not claim Obama was born elsewhere.

    It sounds like you are saying there is NOTHING the courts can do to protect our Constitutional right to an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 President, as they would not have the personal or territorial jurisdiction to do so.

    If the Supreme Court would be put in a position in which they must clearly DEFINE what a natural born citizen is, is that all they could do? The Court could communicate this definition to Congress. Congress could then find Obama not qualified per definition, and remove him from office?

    If you know how to get this done, would you do it please?

  29. thinkwell   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 4:07 PM

    Mr. Pauly,

    Since you did not specifically do so, I will attempt to address how your five points of jurisdiction required for standing could be met. If you believe any part of my interpretation to be in error, please jump in to provide more correct concrete examples as needed.

    I suppose first two points of jurisdiction (territorial and personal) could be met by presenting the case in the DC district court. Point three, subject matter jurisdiction has already been met in many of the prior suits because they have brought up natural law and referred to “natural born Citizen” and “sovereign Citizens” as part of their pleadings, but it wouldn’t hurt to state this as a very specific complaint of the plaintiff(s) per your suggestion.

    The specific non-general injury would be from any law or policy emanating directly from the usurper or any of his orders, policies or appointees that have taxed or infringed upon the natural rights and freedoms of any sovereign Citizen per the basic contract that binds us together as a nation, i.e., the United States Constitution. The injury cited would have to be specific and actually have occurred, but now that we are two years into the ursurper’s regime, there are plenty of existing injured parties available to bring a case (for example, the Chrysler dealers who had their franchises taken away, thereby suffering monetary losses). I suppose the injuring party would be the federal government or any of its parts as the federal government has a Constitutional duty to serve its sovereign Citizens and provide them with a legitimate natural born Citizen president.

    The remedy that the court could provide would be to declare the federal government in breach of contract and thereby free the sovereign Citizen plaintiff from being bound in any way to any of the usurper’s specific orders, policies or appointees that have taxed or infringed upon the sovereign Citizen’s natural rights and freedoms. The court would recognize that the sovereign Citizen agreed to submit only to a government presided over by a duly elected natural born Citizen.

  30. Harry H   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM

    Clearly Jedi Pauly considers himself one of those rare people “who have superior understanding of the jurisdictional issues” in the Obama constitutional crisis, but I seriously doubt that he is one of those who “can prove their case.” He has led us around this rosebush many times before, and without debating him point by point, may I just say I remain unconvinced of his “superior understanding.” And I sense in his writing a lamentable lack of interest in the grave injustice that Obama’s fraudulent election has done to this nation.

  31. GaryW   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM

    While I appreciate the author’s candor and legal acumen, I can only wonder why the Congress and the media fail to apply common sense, rational thinking, logic, critical analysis of the facts and just come to their senses. It is obvious that we have a usurper in the White House and a career criminal no less, who is intent on destroying the values upon which this great nation was founded and has no respect for the American people. Forget about all the legal technicalities. The evidence is clear and unequivocal! Our treasonous elected “representatives” are hiding behind the courts and abrogating their responsibilities to uphold the Constitution. Get the fraud out now!

  32. Frank Bird   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 2:56 PM

    That’s just ridiculously wrong.

  33. Tim   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 2:21 PM

    Very interesting analysis. So, how would you deal with the problem, or do you think that there is no problem?

  34. Marty   Friday, January 21, 2011 at 2:05 PM

    I would have one question?
    There is the case of the Social Security number, where there is proof, that Obama is using one which belonged to someone else.
    That would cover your point 2., because he committed this fraud prior of being President.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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