Visit MilitaryChronicle.com

Military Chronicle is a new channel in the ROKU.com channel store.
History is preserved in this channel for all to see. Description: Historical Films,
Military Documentaries/Movies. A Military Chronicle Of ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE
And MARINES. US History Of Combat On Land, Air And At Sea. The US Military As
Documented By Military Cameramen. MilitaryChronicle.com

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Obama is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office



......................................................................................


.........................................................................................
The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.

Obama’s refusal to release his long form 'Certificate of Live Birth' original long form from Hawaii, his manipulation of facts, his own statements can only lead a sensible person to believe that he intentionally has mislead the United States of America into a Constitutional Crisis by not verifying his online 'certification of live birth'. The 'certification of live birth' does not contain ANY information that can be verfied with out knowing what documents Hawaii has to back it up, if any.

However, this can now be resolved by the state court of the State of Arizona, if there is one sheriff, one prosecutor, one judge, one state representative loyal to the Constitution, because on December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a notarized sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has fulfilled the requirements under the Constitution. The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.

.........................................................................................
A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY OBAMA SWEARING AND CERTIFYING HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THIS DOCUMENT TESTIFYING HE IS “A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN.”

This document is "the smoking gun" because it is HIS word that he is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. He says “i do solemnly swear he is a natural u.s. born citizen”.
.........................................................................................

Elected Officials In Arizona Helpful List

Elected Officials In Arizona

Arizona Government Information Resource Locator

Presidential Preference Election Filing Information

Rock Solid Evidence Obama IS A FRAUD/IMPOSTER

Obama Committed Fraud Before Election
.........................................................................................

The question now is can America find one honest public servant in Arizona who believes in the supremacy of the US Constitution. Write, Call, Email and Fax these people to Inforce 520 U.S. 681 (1997) precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.


# U.S. Senator Jon Kyl Junior Seat
# 1st District - U.S. House Representative - Kirkpatrick, Ann (R)
# 2nd District - U.S. House Representative - Franks, Trent (R)
# 3rd District - U.S. House Representative - Shadegg, John (R)
# 4th District - U.S. House Representative - Pastor, Ed (D)
# 5th District - U.S. House Representative - Mitchell, Harry (D)
# 6th District - U.S. House Representative - Flake, Jeff (R)
# 7th District - U.S. House Representative - Grijalva, Raul M. (D)
# 8th District - U.S. House Representative - Giffords, Gabrielle (D)
# Arizona Governor Jan Brewer
# Attorney General Terry Goddard
# Corporation Commissioner Kristin K. Mayes - Chairman
# Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce
# Corporation Commissioner Paul Newman
# Corporation Commissioner Sandra D. Kennedy
# Corporation Commissioner Bob Stumpl
# Secretary of State Ken Bennett
# State Mine Inspector Joe Hart
# Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne
# Treasurer Dean Martin

........................................................................................

Arizona Public records Request Form

.........................................................................................

I want to know WHY I haven't heard of any lawyer talking about requesting or filing a lawsuit to force Arizona to explain how the state certified obama's sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

******************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************
Clinton v. Jones, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument
******************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************

Clinton v. Jones, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

******************************************************************************************

Facts of the Case:

Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton. She alleged that while she was an Arkansas state employee, she suffered several "abhorrent" sexual advances from then Arkansas Governor Clinton. Jones claimed that her continued rejection of Clinton's advances ultimately resulted in punishment by her state supervisors. Following a District Court's grant of Clinton's request that all matters relating to the suit be suspended, pending a ruling on his prior request to have the suit dismissed on grounds of presidential immunity, Clinton sought to invoke his immunity to completely dismiss the Jones suit against him. While the District Judge denied Clinton's immunity request, the judge ordered the stay of any trial in the matter until after Clinton's Presidency. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal denial but reversed the trial deferment ruling since it would be a "functional equivalent" to an unlawful grant of temporary presidential immunity.

Question:

Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office?

Conclusion:

NO!!!! In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While the independence of our government's branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another. This, the Court added, is true despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may impose on the time, attention, and resources of the Chief Executive.

Decision: 9 votes for Jones, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 2: Separation of Powers


..........................................................................................
Clinton v. Jones - Oral Argument Read This Or Listen
..........................................................................................

Clinton v. Jones - Oral Argument

..........................................................................................

Clinton v. Jones - Opinion Announcement Read This Or Listen

..........................................................................................

Clinton v. Jones - Opinion Announcement

..........................................................................................
Supreme Court Ruling Quote: The opinion of the Court in No. 95-1853, Clinton against Jones will be announced by Justice Stevens.

We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require Federal Courts to stay all private actions against the president
until he leaves office.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What this means is a civil law suit can be brought against obama for fraud because he claims to be a "natural born citizen".

If Obama claims to be a "natural born citizen" he must prove he is and state how he has come to this decision. On what does he base his fact? No federal law in existance at his birth will make him a natural born citizen. Obama has stated on his web site he was a dual citizen at birth because of his father. He father was a Kenyan citizen at obama's birth so he states he was too until age 21. Obama says he was an American citizen and a Kenyan citizen at birth. A dual citizen at birth. A dual citizen at birth is NOT A NATUAL BORN CITIZEN! (TO be a natural born citizen at birth both of his parents must be US citizens at birth) Obama is a FRAUD and IMPOSTER.


Instead of concentrating Exclusively on the "birth certificate" issue, the Supreme Court Ruling should be used to expose obama as an IMPOSTER in Arizona and if possible in any federal or state court.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

TAKE ACTION: ASK THE QUESTION I HAVE BELOW!

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
PHOENIX – Oct. 19, 2009 – Arizona Attorney magazine will co-sponsor an Oct. 26 program, the Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation, with the William H. Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer will participate in the program.

Oct. 19, 2009 – Arizona Attorney magazine will co-sponsor an Oct. 26 program, the Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation, with the William H. Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
.........................................................................................

JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in the judgment.

........................................................................................
OCTOBER TERM, 1996

Syllabus

CLINTON v. JONES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1853. Argued January 13, 1997-Decided May 27,1997

JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the majority that the Constitution does not automatically grant the President an immunity from civil lawsuits based upon his private conduct. Nor does the "doctrine of separation of powers ... require federal courts to stay" virtually "all private actions against the President until he leaves office." Ante, at 705-706. Rather, as the Court of Appeals stated, the President cannot simply rest upon the claim that a private civil lawsuit for damages will "interfere with the constitutionally assigned duties of the Executive Branch ... without detailing any specific responsibilities or explaining how or the degree to which they are affected by the suit." 72 F.3d 1354, 1361 (CA8 1996). To obtain a postponement the President must "bea[r] the burden of establishing its need." Ante, at 708.

In my view, however, once the President sets forth and explains a conflict between judicial proceeding and public duties, the matter changes. At that point, the Constitution permits a judge to schedule a trial in an ordinary civil damages action (where postponement normally is possible without overwhelming damage to a plaintiff) only within the constraints of a constitutional principle-a principle that forbids a federal judge in such a case to interfere with the President's discharge of his public duties. I have no doubt that the Constitution contains such a principle applicable to civil suits, based upon Article II's vesting of the entire "executive Power" in a single individual, implemented through the Constitution's structural separation of powers, and revealed both by history and case precedent.

The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.
.........................................................................................
ASK OBAMA THIS QUESTION THROUGH THE COURTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(This Question Needs to be Asked During Or After The Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation Program?)

My specific question asks if Supreme Court Ruling No. 95-1853, case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) , would apply to any State or Federal Court Case that would involve the question of "natural born citizenship" that Obama has indicated on State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242) but has not been validated by law. In other words can I or any other US citizen file a civil suit claiming obama committed fraud before the election and expect obama to answer the suit.
.........................................................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has fulfilled the requirements under the Constitution. The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.

Ref: State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Oct. 19, 2009 – Arizona Attorney magazine will co-sponsor an Oct. 26 program, the Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation, with the William H. Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer will participate in the program.
............................................................
OCTOBER TERM, 1996

Syllabus

CLINTON v. JONES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1853. Argued January 13, 1997-Decided May 27,1997

JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the majority that the Constitution does not automatically grant the President an immunity from civil lawsuits based upon his private conduct. Nor does the "doctrine of separation of powers ... require federal courts to stay" virtually "all private actions against the President until he leaves office." Ante, at 705-706. Rather, as the Court of Appeals stated, the President cannot simply rest upon the claim that a private civil lawsuit for damages will "interfere with the constitutionally assigned duties of the Executive Branch ... without detailing any specific responsibilities or explaining how or the degree to which they are affected by the suit." 72 F.3d 1354, 1361 (CA8 1996). To obtain a postponement the President must "bea[r] the burden of establishing its need." Ante, at 708.

In my view, however, once the President sets forth and explains a conflict between judicial proceeding and public duties, the matter changes. At that point, the Constitution permits a judge to schedule a trial in an ordinary civil damages action (where postponement normally is possible without overwhelming damage to a plaintiff) only within the constraints of a constitutional principle-a principle that forbids a federal judge in such a case to interfere with the President's discharge of his public duties. I have no doubt that the Constitution contains such a principle applicable to civil suits, based upon Article II's vesting of the entire "executive Power" in a single individual, implemented through the Constitution's structural separation of powers, and revealed both by history and case precedent.

The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.
...........................................................
(Could You Ask Or Answer This Question For Me During Or After The Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation
Program?)

My specific question asks if Supreme Court Ruling No. 95-1853, case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) , would apply to any state or federal Court Case that would involve the question of "natural born citizenship" that Obama has indicated on State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242) but has not been validate by law. In other words can I or any other US citizen file a civil suit claiming obama committed fraud before the election and expect obama to answer the suit.
...........................................................
On December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has fulfilled the requirements under the Constitution. The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.

Ref: State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242)