Last New Visitor Brazil Visited March 25, 2011 |  |
Friday, March 25, 2011
11-03-25 The Rule of Law - Complaint pertaining to alleged Social Security Fraud by President Obama! // El Estado de Derecho - Denuncia presunto fraude relacionados con la Seguridad Social por el presidente Obama // 法治- 投诉有关涉嫌欺诈社会保障总统奥巴马!
President Obama_ _ _ _ _ Dr Orly Taitz
Los Angeles, March 25 - Complaint was filed by Dr Orly Taitz pursuant to USC §552 (Freedom of Information Act) against Michael Astrue, Social Security Commissioner. The complaint pertains to refusal of the Social Security Administration to release information, which was requested as part of efforts to ascertain the validity, or lack thereof, of various Social Security numbers and other demographic data used by President Obama.
The exhibits of the complaint include two affidavits by renowned fraud investigators, regarding several dozen Social Security numbers used by President Obama.
I have used so far only one Social Security number.
How many have you?
Would the US District Court in Washington DC be able to accord Equal Protection and Due Process?
Attached:
# | Record | Page |
1. | Complaint, Dkt #001 | 2 |
2. | Exhibits, Dkt #001-1 | 11 |
3. | Civil Cover Sheet, Dkt #001-02 | 60 |
4. | NEF | 63 |
LINKS:
[1] 11-02-16 Taitz v Astrue (1:11-cv-00402) in the US District Court, Washington, DC - pertaining to refusal of Social Security Administration to release information regarding President Obama's Social Security data - Dkt #001: Complaint, Exhibits, Cover Sheet, and NEF s
[1] 11-02-16 Taitz v Astrue (1:11-cv-00402) in the US District Court, Washington, DC - pertaining to refusal of Social Security Administration to release information regarding President Obama's Social Security data - Dkt #001: Complaint, Exhibits, Cover Sheet, and NEF s
11-03-25 The riddle of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission... // Faltan los registros de la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. // 美国最高法院丢失记录
The riddle of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission... The missing February 22, 2010 Judgment...
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission presumably accorded corporations First Amendment rights. However, the First Amendment right of the people, for access to valid and effectual records of the Supreme Court of the United States, is denied.
Los Angeles, March 25 - Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) is no doubt one of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court. It was reported to have accorded corporations First Amendment rights. However, a valid and effectual copy of the February 22, 2010 Judgment in the case - a historic document - is yet to be discovered...
Review of online records of the US Supreme Court [1] shows:
- The journal for January 21, 2010, the date of the presumed decision, is missing the typical introductory remark, found in many (but not all) seatings of the court, regarding certification and entry of the orders and decisions.
- For example, on January 25, 2010, the immediate next seating of the Court, the introductory remark says:
"The Chief Justice said:
We have issued orders today, they have been duly entered and certified, and filed with the Clerk." [underline added -jz]
- The online docket of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission says:
"Feb 22 2010 JUDGMENT ISSUED." [underline added -jz]
"Issuing" of orders and judgments, which are neither certified, nor entered, is a common fraud in the lower courts... [2]
Additional efforts to discover the February 22, 2010 Judgment were unsuccessful:
- Request was forwarded to parties in the case, for a copy of the judgment, which was supposed to have been noticed and served. One party responded that the February 22, 2010 Judgment was neither served nor noticed, in apparent violation of Due Process rights. No party responded that a February 22, 2010 Judgment was either noticed or served.
- The US Department of Justice, in response to a Freedom of Information request for the February 22, 2010 Judgment, responded that "The Civil Division does not maintain records relating to that case."
- Previous attempts to discover valid and effectual judicial records in paper court files of the US Supreme Court uniformly failed. Access to the electronic records of the US Supreme Court was and is denied, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights. [3]
Reports of the United Nations Crime Prevention Center on "Strengthening Judicial Integrity" list missing court records as a cardinal sign of judicial corruption. [4,5]
With it, the vague and ambiguous records of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) join the likewise vague and ambiguous records of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, where the Supreme Court was reported to have recognized corporations as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In short: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission presumably accorded corporations First Amendment rights. However, the First Amendment right of the people, for access to valid and effectual records of the Supreme Court of the United States, is denied. As a result, at present, there is no way to ascertain, whether in fact a valid and effectual February 22, 2010 Judgment in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission was ever certified and entered.
LINKS:
[1] 11-03-16 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (08-205) in the Supreme Court of the United States - Review and Compiled Online Records
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)