Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Re: Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

Not only is the Obama regime refusing to
perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the
Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself!
---
what do you expect from a black socialist?

In October 2011, documents were released that indicated Holder was
sent memos in regards to Operation Fast and Furious in 2010,
contradicting Holder's sworn testimony before the House Judiciary
Committee in which he said he was unaware of Operation Fast and
Furious until April 2011. In response, Lamar Smith, the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to President Obama, requesting
the appointment of an independent special counsel to investigate
whether Holder committed perjury by lying to the committee while under
oath.

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has
written in the Washington Times that, "It is time for Mr. Holder to
go." because of his role in Operation Operation Fast and Furious.
Perry stated that, "America simply cannot tolerate an attorney general
who arms the very criminals he is supposed to protect us from".

On Jan 16, 3:02 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ** **
>
> in a special article in the Canada Free
> Press<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983>
> ****
> Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer**** ONLY the US Supreme Court has
> Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial****
>
> [image: Author]****
>
> *- Publius Huldah* Thursday, July 29, 2010
> | *Print friendly*<http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/25983>|
> *Email Us*<lett...@canadafreepress.com?subject=Dear%20Canada%20Free%20Press>
> ****
>
> 57 <http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don't
> read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same
> goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But *this* lawyer
> has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution
> which is as plain as the nose on your face. ****
>
> Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:****
>
> *In all Cases affecting* Ambassadors, other *public Ministers* and
> Consuls, *and those in which a State shall be Party*, *the supreme Court
> shall have original Jurisdiction.* In all the other Cases before mentioned,
> the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…****
>
> "Original" jurisdiction means the power to conduct the "trial" of the case
> (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You
> all know quite well what a "trial" is - you see them all the time on TV
> shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and
> are cross-examined, etc. ****
>
> The style of the Arizona
> case<http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/arizona_rul...>shows
> quite clearly that the named defendants are:
> ****
>
> State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
> Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
> Official Capacity, Defendants.****
>
> Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than
> do you****
>
> See where it says, "State of Arizona"? And "Janice K. Brewer, Governor of
> the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec.
> 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court "original Jurisdiction",
> i.e., jurisdiction to conduct *the trial* of this case. THAT is what strips
> the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this
> case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case
> than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).****
>
> In Federalist No.
> 81<http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed81.htm>(13th
> para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art.
> III, Sec. 2, clause 2:****
>
> ...Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be
> distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The
> Supreme Court is to be invested with *original jurisdiction, only* *"in
> cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those
> in which A STATE shall be a party."* Public ministers of every class are
> the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which
> they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that,
> as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the
> sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such
> questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest
> judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a
> diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to
> which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to
> them. *In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill
> suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….*[boldface
> added, caps in original]****
>
> Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is
> specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!****
>
> So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:****
>
> 1. File a *Petition for Removal* before federal district court Judge Susan
> R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the
> ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, *only the
> Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.* ****
>
> 2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a *Petition for
> Writ of Mandamus* in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge
> Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.****
>
> A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law "extraordinary writ":
> It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to
> something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for
> Northern District of California
> (1976<http://openjurist.org/426/us/394/kerr-v-united-states-district-court-...>),
> the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of
> mandamus:****
>
> ....the fact still remains that "only exceptional circumstances amounting
> to a judicial 'usurpation of power' will justify the invocation of this
> extraordinary remedy."...(para 13)****
>
> When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the
> Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a
> ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, *then that federal
> district court judge usurps power*. She is specifically stripped - by Art.
> III, Sec. 2, clause 2 - of jurisdiction to preside over the case against
> the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.****
>
> For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme
> Court Rule 20<http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/search/display.html?terms=mand...>
> .****
>
> Article IV, Sec. 4, *requires* the federal government to protect each of
> the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to
> perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the
> Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the
> part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.****
>
> OK, counselors - Go for it! PH <http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/> ****
>
> *Publius Huldah*
> Most recent columns<http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/25983/Publius%20Huldah/>
> ****
>
> Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA. She writes
> on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at publiushuldah.wordpress.com
> Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she
> specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of
> knowledge).
>
> Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788
> by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the
> proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it,
> Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S.
> Constitution. She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal
> courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted
> their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution. ****
>
> Publius can be reached at:
> Publiushul...@twlakes.net<Publiushul...@twlakes.net?bcc=lett...@canadafreepress.com>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

New Post at [HillBuzz.org]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: HillBuzz.org <ads@hillbuzz.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Subject: New Post at [HillBuzz.org]
To: ads@hillbuzz.org

HillBuzz.org has posted a new item, 'Wikipedia Will Go Dark On Wednesday to
Protest SOPA/PIPA'

You may view the latest post at

http://hillbuzz.org/wikipedia-will-go-dark-on-wednesday-to-protest-sopapipa-72757

You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are
posted.

Best regards,
HillBuzz.org
ads@hillbuzz.org

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

in a special article in the Canada Free Press

Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

Author

- Publius Huldah Thursday, July 29, 2010
| Print friendly | Email Us

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don't read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

"Original" jurisdiction means the power to conduct the "trial" of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a "trial" is - you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you

See where it says, "State of Arizona"? And "Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court "original Jurisdiction", i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

...Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party." Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….[boldface added, caps in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.

2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law "extraordinary writ": It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

....the fact still remains that "only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial 'usurpation of power' will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy."...(para 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped - by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 - of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.

Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

OK, counselors - Go for it! PH

Publius Huldah
Most recent columns

Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA. She writes on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at publiushuldah.wordpress.com Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge).

Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it, Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution.

Publius can be reached at: Publiushuldah@twlakes.net

A Power Play in Congress - and How To Stop It

A Power Play in Congress – and How To Stop It

by Karen Kwiatkowski

Recently by Karen Kwiatkowski: A Year To Wake Up!

A wholly predictable big-government play for even more control over markets and technology, information and communication is moving through Congress.

That's not news. It's actually quite typical. After the nauseating passage of the National Defense Authorization Bill last month, with its Constitution-shattering military detention provisions for any American who falls out of the President's favor, or who has crossed his minions, what might not be passed into law?

The Senate's Protect IP Act, PIPA, and its House companion Stop Online Piracy Act, SOPA, is now seeping through the congressional sewage system. This legislative pollution is purported to reduce global data piracy and illegal copying of digital content by regulating American ISPs and the Internet. Entertainment industry moguls and "too-big-to fail" content producers are demanding it, and it's designed by paid-off, power-hungry establishment lawyers in Congress who don't understand internet architecture, information technology, or the nature of the free market.

SOPA in particular is written by the fascist-leaning central controllers in Washington, who believe a better America will be one with an RFID chip in every creature, four legs and two, federal tracking of every person from birth to death, and exquisite knowledge of their every transaction, in real time. Lavrenti Beria and the East German Stasi chief Markus Wolf must be dreaming of reincarnation into such a totalitarian jewel – the United States in the 21^st Century.

While containing some differences, these proposed laws, at heart, constitute simple rent-seeking by Hollywood and big music industry content producers. As Gary Shapiro writes in Forbes.com, while "sold as only attacking overseas "rogue" websites, the legislation expands federal government power, [PIPA and SOPA] encourages private litigation and threatens legitimate web sites like Google, YouTube and Facebook." Beyond the surface justification, only the most naive among us can deny that more federal regulation, more government monitoring, and more fearful Internet service providers and vendors all work to promote our D.C. master's definition of "progress."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers an easy to understand explanation of SOPA – aka the "Internet Blacklist Bill," and the dangers of its intended, and unintended, consequences. The reaction by the sleeping tiger of American small businesses, youth, techies, and advocates for free speech and the remnants of the Constitution indeed illustrates the Daily Bell's concept of the Internet reformation.

But it isn't fair to say that all of us together are that "sleeping" tiger. The tiger has been rousing for several decades, corresponding with increased access to knowledge, and the living, growing network of this knowledge. When Ron Paul says, "We are dangerous!" it is indeed true – but not to each other, not to capitalism and freedom, nor to society or peace – but we – unleashed, informed, angry and connected – are deadly dangerous to the state.

There is a Mussolini-esque idea shared by many in Congress today, and by current and past Presidents. They believe that a modern America is realized when "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." This ideal of bureaucrats and centralists is antithetical to the classical liberalism of the founders. It is antithetical to liberty, and it is a fundamental reason for the modern growth of the state – to the extent that the current account borrowing has exceeded the entire annual GDP of what was once the greatest, most productive and most admired nation on the planet. Bureaucrats and centralists in Washington have created in America a modern socialist Greece, writ large, minus the tourism.

SOPA represents the national socialism that taints every D.C. government "solution" offered in the 21^st century. That PIPA and SOPA won't work to end or even reduce data piracy goes without saying. The Japanese faced down Chinese data piracy years ago – with a combination of technology, software and creative business and distribution models. Content producers in the United States have absolutely no excuse not to meet the challenge – but instead they seek to rent-seek, to shape the business environment not through competition, but through favorable laws and government-granted aid and benefits – with the complete and greedy cooperation of the central state in DC.

There is a reason the founders limited the role of the federal government, and had the Congress meet infrequently. To allow otherwise requires our constant alertness, our instant and unleashed rage, our profound and constantly communicated contempt for the Congress. We must reject their idiocy, condemn rent-seeking, and crush the bureaucratic confidence of our so-called representatives.

The story of the PIPA and SOPA – and what we hope will be its imminent legislative desiccation and death – is indeed remarkable. Free market, pro-technology, free speech and Constitutional arousal in opposition to the blacklisting, technology-opposing, constitution-offending, rent-seeking and liberty-hating legislation has been powerful. Congressmen and Senators are fleeing like surprised cockroaches from these bills. Further, several congressmen associated with the top down interference and control of technology and communication – in the name of keeping all of us "safe" and "honest" face, primaries or general elections, and many will lose these elections.

Americans failed to sufficiently oppose the Patriot Act, jammed down out throats a decade ago in the name of safety and security. Instead, we face a Catch-22 between fear of travel in our own country, and fear of publicly complaining about the security state, lest we be named enemy combatants, and are disappeared into a Constitution-free zone of endless, unwarranted federal incarceration.

The national reaction to SOPA and PIPA legislation should give us all hope that peaceful change is indeed, for the moment, still possible. I am delighted to be at the forefront of a political war, as the congressional primary challenger to Bob "Il Duce" Goodlatte. This chief author of SOPA, and defender of an imaginary U.S. government right to manage the Internet, and its billions of users, is paid handsomely to do it. It's par for the course. Goodlatte is widely known for implementing legislation to ban and punish Internet gaming through federal seizure and lockdown of related financial transactions – all while actively supporting the domestic horse racing industry, which had heavily donated to his war chest.

My challenge to Bob Goodlatte is founded in my opposition to his long and hypocritical history of centralizing, regulating, spending and subsidizing. I believe that liberty and freedom, free markets and peace, will ultimately succeed and predominate in America. As my readers already know, I am a long-term optimist. But we can do a lot more than just sit around waiting to be proven correct. A politically vile ten-term RINO needs to be sent a message, and he needs to be sent packing. Our June 12^th primary is eminently winnable, and we intend to win it. The fighting 6^th District of Virginia will do its part, and our plan, in addition to killing SOPA in its crib, is to send another Dr. No to Washington in November. Join us!

January 16, 2012

LRC columnist Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, blogs occasionally at Liberty and Power and The Beacon. To receive automatic announcements of new articles, click here or join her Facebook page. She is currently running for Congress in Virginia's 6th district.