WOBC Radio Special Broadcast 10-16-17

“JUDICIAL TREASON”

by Mike Volin, President, WOBC Radio

(Oct. 16, 2017) — Montgomery Blair Sibley is probably best known to our audience as the attorney for the D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, whose clientele included some of the biggest names in Washington. But is, in fact, one of the country’s foremost champions in the fight against government arrogance and excess at every level. In judicial circles, he has earned a reputation as a “multi-headed leviathan of litigation” for his 25-year string of lawsuits against the courts. Recently, he sued the nine justices of the Supreme Court for “judicial treason.” Join Montgomery this evening to hear his take on recent Supreme Court shenanigans. We’ll also be discussing his book, Why Just Her: The Judicial Lynching of the D.C. Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

http://montgomeryblairsibley.com/wjh/author.html

Date: 10-16-17 Time: 8:00pm-10:00pm eastern
Telephone calls are welcome: 347-989-8853 (press 1 to speak with the guest)

Listen live here:  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wheresobamasbirthcertificatexcom/2017/10/17/montgomery-blair-sibley-v-the-supreme-court-is-justice-roberts-corrupt

18 Responses to "WOBC Radio Special Broadcast 10-16-17"

  1. Mark Bellison   Friday, October 20, 2017 at 11:57 AM

    “During the founding, “natural born Citizen” meant the same thing as “native born citizen.” It is only in later years that the the term “native born citizen” came to mean a child born in the United States without any reference to the citizenship of his or her parents.” Mario Apuzzo

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/01/difference-between-natural-and-native.html

    So when did this change in meaning occur?

    1803 – St. George Tucker:

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”

    1826 – James Kent:

    “The Constitution requires that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, … As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption”

    1856 – Samuel Busey

    “They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen”

  2. T.F. BOW   Friday, October 20, 2017 at 1:47 AM

    Gary Wilmott’s son’s friend attends a conservative law school. At this school, the friend’s Constitutional Law professor graduated from a top law school and held a prestigious federal judicial clerkship. The professor taught that a natural-born citizen is one born in the United States. This view is at least consistent with every judge who has considered the matter and ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

    The professor therefore taught what judges and other actual experts all see as settled law, but Gary Wilmott thinks the professor taught this because the professor, who teaches at a conservative school, is black and therefore must love Obama. Interesting.

  3. Mark Bellison   Friday, October 20, 2017 at 12:11 AM

    To the Founders native born and natural born meant the same thing.

  4. Mark Bellison   Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 1:11 PM

    Some more questions:

    Here is what Judge Morrow of the Northern District Court of California ruled:

    “From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment. He has not forfeited his right to return to this country. His detention, therefore, is illegal. He should be discharged, and it is so ordered.”

    He does not say that Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen but only that he is a citizen of the United States (the same as Justice Gray in the Supreme Court decision). Yet here is what the U.S Government attorney wrote in its appellant brief:

    “The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.”

    And later in the appellant brief they go on to say,

    “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

    Why does the government say that Judge Morrow ruled Wong to be a natural born citizen? And why mention the part about being eligible to the Presidency if Minor v. Happersett had already determined you need two citizen parents?

  5. Mark Bellison   Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 9:37 AM

    Some questions:

    Here is Professor Titus’ amicus brief for Rudy v. Lee.

    Why doesn’t he mention that the Supreme Court determined the meaning of natural born citizen in Minor? Why does he spend a great deal of time explain Justice Gray’s and Chief Justice Fuller’s opinions in Wong?

    http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/Rudy%20v%20Lee%20USJF%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

    “It is not necessary at this point to decide whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. Nor is it necessary now to endorse Justice Gray’s views over those of dissenting Chief Justice Fuller, or vice versa. Indeed, Mr. Rudy’s case against President Obama’s citizenship is based upon both views — that he is not a natural born citizen based either on his place of birth, or on the citizenship of his parents.” In amicus brief for Rudy v. Lee, Professor Herb Titus, Counsel of Record

    Wasn’t this settled by Minor v. Happersett? Why doesn’t he say that?

    Why doesn’t Morse say that Minor v.Happersett is the binding precedent? Why does he even mention Wong if Minor is binding?

  6. Gary Wilmott   Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 1:01 AM

    “Would Seem….” oh that’s binding…no that’s laughable. As for Herb Titus….I have interviewed Herb Titus and spoken to him on the phone and he does not believe that a Natural Born Citizen is simply a person born in the United States.

    Nice try Mark Bellison. Time to get educated and see what Herb Titus has to say about NBC:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

    Please stop conflating Native Born with Natural Born.

  7. jeffrey Harrison   Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:10 PM

    Mark, thanks for your inquiry as to when Zullo may reveal additional information. As Ed has
    stated Mike has been in contact with Arpaio for a probable show.

    While Arpaio did receive a pardon, I sense and understand he may be still involved with filing
    additional court actions. Therefore, this court thing could still be pending and ongoing. Therefore, Joe can’t go nuclear until this this concluded.

    That aside, I sense it that Arpaio has most if not all the cards in his favor. As I recall, some of his evidence has been copy righted. Therefore, protected from abuse. And I highly suspect
    Arpaio has more mind-blowing evidence that he has yet to release to the public with more
    that would be held in reserve for V.I.P.s and with the “need to know” to others for their support
    and to protect the evidence.

    So, Arpaio will reveal information to the public when it is time. Some time ago Team Arpaio had stated they have evidence stored at different sites to detour members from being harmed (killed).

    Let’s all be on standby when Arpaio lets loose, have his back, and then give him full support.

  8. Mark Bellison   Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:07 PM

    On page 57 of William Dameron Guthrie’s 1898 article on the 14th Amendment (Lectures on the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States) he says the results of the decision is that the “male child born here of Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President.”

    William Guthrie argued before the very same Court that income taxes were unconstitutional and won.

    Alexander Porter Morse in the 1903 edition of The Washington Law Reporter Volume 31 as that under a recent Supreme Court “a child of domiciled Chinese parents, if born in the United States, would seem to eligible to the office of President and to all the privileges of the Constitution”.

    Morse argued the government’s case in Plessy v. Ferguson before the Supreme Court and won.

    There is also the appellant brief filed by the U.S. Government that said the lower court was mistaken to rule Wong a natural born citizen, even though the lower court never used that term in its ruling.

    Finally there is the recent amicus brief in Rudy v. Lee by Professor Herb Titus who told the Supreme Court that they would eventually have to choose between Justice Gray’s decision or Chief Justice Fuller’s dissenting opinion to determine the meaning of natural born citizen.

  9. Gary Wilmott   Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 1:30 PM

    To Mark B….makes absolutely NO SENSE. Anchor babies all eligible to be POTUS. Really? Such a position completely ignores the Constitution and court interpretations of Article II. Please stop making things up. Also please provide me the source of your statement: “…several prominent attorneys…blah, blah,blah.” Please provide the actual names of these 19th century geniuses please. And note that someone’s OPINION accounts for NOTHING when debating this issue. ONLY THE FACTS.

  10. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 1:24 PM

    THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT, NOT PROSECUTE, THEIR DC SWAMP GAS CREATION, SO2 = SOETORO-OBAMA II.

    THEREFORE, ALL KNOWLEDGE PATRIOTS ACROSS AMERICA MUST ASSEMBLE EN MASSE TO DISCUSS FACTUALLY AND DECLARE CONFIDENTLY IN FRONT OF SOME 323,000,000 presIDential-knowledge-robbed AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT SO2 NEVER WAS, NEVER IS and NEVER WILL BE AMERICA’S 44th CONSTITUTIONAL presIDent, OR ELSE, WE REMAIN DIVIDED AND CONQUERED SINCE 08-28-08 ON THIS GREATEST NATIONAL ISSUE, BY CHOICE.

  11. Ed Sunderland   Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 10:31 AM

    Mark, Mike is working on a show with the Sheriff. He’s been in contact and is working on a show. We all want to move forward on this and are looking at how we can all help.

    The good news is we have a new president that is not Hillary, Obama or a swamp thing with no clue. President Trump has been unraveling the the binds Obama/Soetoro placed on this country. He’s trying to get people in place that can help although a few are suspect.

    Montgomery Sibley has explained a distressing Supreme Court decision that John Roberts endorsed that restricts liberty of workers in this country. He discusses this on the show. It is great that we have the likes of Mongomery Sibley, Larry Klayman, Tom Fitton, and others that stay in the fight to seek justice for the injustice that requires resolution from the criminal Obama administration.

  12. Mark Bellison   Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:27 AM

    Shortly after the Wong Kim Ark decision was announced (1898) several prominent attorneys wrote that the decision made children born in the US to alien parents eligible to be President. That was the understanding of the decision at the time.

    So it should come as no surprise that law schools teach that as the law. I don’t recall any eligibility law suit argue that Wong was wrongly decided and must be overturned. Instead they argued Minor v Happpersett is binding precedent even though Wong would have overturned it.

  13. Gary Wilmott   Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 1:14 AM

    My son’s best friend is in his first year in law school at Pepperdine University in Malibu. His Constitutional Law professor is black. I say this because the large percentage of blacks worship the fraud known as Obama and I have every expectation that this gentleman is no different. This week Natural Born Citizen was discussed in class. The professor declared very simply that a Natural Born Citizen is one born in America. That’s it. Was he challenged? NO. I expressed irritation with my son’s friend that he did not attempt to challenge or even debate the professor. After all I have spent hours over the years talking about this with my kids and their friends. I was especially frustrated because I had provided my son’s friend all the ammunition to debate the issue when it came up. I also asked that the lecture be recorded but my son’s friend failed to do so. Ignorance or a lack of courage to debate liberal professors just means that the propaganda continues and another generation are provided a false and idiotic ,irrational definition of what it means to be a National Born Citizen.

  14. jeffrey Harrison   Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:12 PM

    Tom,

    Perhaps, and only in America can we take a simple item to twist it and to stretch it and
    still not comprehend it. What, after some 241 years as a country we as citizens(many) are
    clueless as to the meaning and definition of Natural Born Citizen? Maybe we all should
    find a wide, deep, rapid running river with a high bridge and leap off it for not knowing
    what a NBC is.

    Somewhat recently in our national history Congress has attempted to erase the Natural
    Born Citizen requirement some several times. At the founding of our country our founding
    fathers were “English Subjects” and not “Natural Born Citizens” by they were “grandfathered”
    in to hold the office of president. Therefore, after this generation, in order to hold the office,
    President of the United States one had to be a “Natural Born Citizen” via the Constitution.

    Numerous national experts have sworn affidavits as to declaring Obama’s credentials are fraudulent. Other experts have come from the international community. Obama and only one other man (his name escapes me now) obtained the office fraudulently.

    The requirement for the president was to be a check and balance from foreign influence and sabotage. So, what is a Natural Born Citizen? Is it really anyone from anywhere born on American Soil? Hit, our founding fathers did have discussions on this? Further, they did not desire a foreigner with divided loyalties to be president.

    Didn’t the Court give us Obama Care based on being a tax? Also, they have punted on
    having a hearing on Obama’s credentials. Can this same Court be trusted opine on
    the true meaning of NBC? Where’s that bridge?

  15. Mark Bellison   Monday, October 16, 2017 at 9:39 PM

    When can we expect a special WOBC show with Zullo giving an update? With Arpaio pardon nothing should be holding them back.

  16. Mark Bellison   Monday, October 16, 2017 at 7:33 PM

    Do you have a link to the 31 page analysis?

    FWIW, Pixel Patriot proved there was a seal on the PDF and that seal just happens to be in the exact same place as the one seen on the Guthrie photograph.

  17. Tom Arnold   Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:59 PM

    The U.S. Supreme Court has been COMPLICIT with the LEFT and former president Barry Soetoro AKA “Barack Hussein Obama” and his (RICO) Administration for at least the last DECADE (2007-2017). Note that Soetoro AKA “Obama” is NOT, AND NEVER WAS, our country’s “first Black” president. Ethnically, he is primarily ARAB-AMERICAN (50% White, 44% Arab, and only 6% Black). Also, note that Soetoro AKA “Obama” is foreign-born (British Kenya just like he himself said in a 1991 bio). Later, he was adopted by an INDONESIAN adoptive father and, as a result, became an INDONESIAN citizen! And, for the record, though he denies it, a MUSLIM (and a radical one at that!)..

    THUS, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION/RULING THAT THE HIGH COURT COULD MAKE IS TO TAKE UP AND CLARIFY/DEFINE “NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP” (ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION).

    HOWEVER, WITH “JUSTICES” LIKE CLARENCE THOMAS (THOUGHT TO BE CONSERVATIVE!), WHO ONCE DECLARED “WE’RE EVADING THAT ISSUE,” WHAT CHANCE DO WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE? WHAT CHANCE DOES JUSTICE HAVE?

    AMEN, AND GOD BLESS AMERICA.

    Tom W Arnold (an unashamed and righteous “BIRTHER”).

  18. jeffrey Harrison   Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:08 PM

    Back in June 2017 as a junior volunteer of Where’s Obama Birth Certificate I assisted
    Mr. Sibley with a project in contacting Judge Fredric J. Ammerman of Clearfield County, PA
    to request him to appoint a Grand Jury dealing with Obama’s fraudulently submitted
    identity documents. ( my first letter was sent 06/02/17)

    Mr. Sibley claimed Obama violated 18 PA Code 4101 (Forgery), 18 PA code 4104
    (Tampering with Records or Identification), 18 PA Code 4111 (Tampering with Public Records) and/or 18 PA Code 4120 (Identity Theft) among others. This info was included
    in the first sent letter.

    Also included in this mailing was a 31 page analysis entitled: A Request and Presentment
    Concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s Identity Documents. Information and evidence in
    this report dealt with Savanah Guthrie “felt the seal?”, lack of raised seal, “white Halo”,
    misaligned type, different fonts, kerning, errors in Registrar’s Stamp, and etc. Also note
    was problems with Obama’s SSN and Selective Service Number.

    June 9, 2015 Clearfield County Court Administrator responded with Code, Title 42 Pa.
    C.S.A …”Grand Jury convened to investigate crime in county where a crime occurs…”
    …”tampering with records didn’t occur in this county, …Grand Jury won’t occur”.

    June 11, 2015 With Mr. Sibley’s assistance I sent a second letter stating three cases and
    references of crimes occurring from outside jurisdictions outside PA that went into PA and
    were ruled on favorable.

    July 16, 2015 I received a letter from Clearfield County Court “warning” not to contact
    again”. So I quit while I was a-head…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.