Judge: Hearing Monday For Obama Identity Fraud Case; Obama Selective Service Fraud?
Video: Obama Identity Document Fraud Hearing
Set For Monday; Obama Selective Service Fraud
Via Judge England's Order: Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court will hear oral argument regarding both California Defendants’ and Federal Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss on April 22, 2013 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 7. The Court will allot each party--Plaintiffs, California Defendants, and Federal Defendants--a maximum of 30 minutes of oral argument. Oral argument will be limited to: (1) mootness, (2) standing, (3) political question doctrine, (4) the Speech and Debate Clause, and/or (5) service of process on defendants. No witnesses and/or exhibits will be permitted or considered at the hearing. Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Recuse Counsel for Defendants and Motion to Expedite under Local Rule 144” (ECF No. 102) currently set for April 18, 2013 is VACATED in light of the hearing on the motions to dismiss. A new hearing date will be set for said motion if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED.
[ FULL ORDER EMBEDDED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136330316 ]
Via Dr. Taitz: State defendants filed a reply where they are stating the following: They are not saying that Obama’s selective service certificate is not a forgery, they are saying that according to 5USC 3328 one cannot be appointed to the executive branch if he did not register with the elective service. They are stating that Obama was elected and not appointed, it does no matter, he can forged Selective Service certificate, it’s o’k
IV. PLAINTIFFS DO NOT STATE A CLAIM UNDER 5 U.S.C. § 3328.
Plaintiffs allege that President Obama’s selective service registration is a forgery, and that he is therefore ineligible to serve as President under 5 U.S.C. § 3328. Dkt. 116 at 16. That statute states that anyone born after 1959, and who fails to register under the Selective Service Act, “shall be ineligible for an appointment to a position in an Executive agency.” This allegation fails to state a claim for two reasons. First, the President was elected, he was not “appointed” to a position “in an Executive Agency.” Second, the State Defendants have no warrant to enforce federal laws governing appointments to federal agencies.
[ DEFENDANTS' FULL REPLY EMBEDDED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136330978 ]
Another point that they brought, is that it is o’k to violate CA law in regards to elections, as long as the minimum Federal standards are observed.
In CA the offices of the registrar admitted to falsifying records and entering U.S. or USA for the place of birth and entering the birthdate, where it was missing.
They are saying that since the NVRA does not require the place of birth, the CA law requiring it can be violated. [...] - Dr. Taitz.
TAITZ'S EX-PARTE MOTION TO STRIKE EMBEDDED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136331576
TAITZ'S PROPOSED ORDER EMBEDDED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136331822
TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA SELECTIVE SERVICE: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/search?q=Selective+Service
PREVIOUS REPORTS: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/search?q=Grinols+Obama
FLASHBACK: Affidavit: DHS Special Agent Stephen Coffman; Obama Selective Service Forged - DETAILS HERE.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.