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"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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