EXCLUSIVE: Another Supreme Court Filing DROPS against Barack Obama

EXCLUSIVE: Here’s the most recent Supreme Court Filing against Barack Obama.  It keeps PILING UP against Barack Obama.  He’s in a load of trouble now.  I think it’s all over for him.  The internet powerhouses have truly done it this time with another great example of their legal minds.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI’I
SUPREME COURT DOCKET NUMBER: CONFIDENTIAL

CHRISTOPHER JONES,
Petitioner,
HON. LINDA LINGLE, Governor; DEREK JETER, NY Yankees
HON. SARAH PALIN, Governor and VP Candidate;
Respondents.

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A BILL OF LADING
INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The question of the authenticity, public availability, and carbon content of the birth certificate of Senator Barack Obama (hereinafter “Senator Barack Obama”) has become a source of increasing embarrassment for me, myself, and especially I. Although Sena”tor” Barack Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his own web site, and despite the fact that it has been corroborated to be a true short form birth certificate by the Hawai’i Department of Health, Senator Barack Obama still refuses to acknowledge that the birth certificate is fake, despite the fact that there is not even an iota of proof that it is, in fact fake. Accordingly, it is clear now – and do not ask how I know this because, let’s just say, I know this – that he was, in fact, born in Kenya, much less born at all.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. The Petitioner
Petitioner Christopher Jones has been writing about Obama for over sixty-three years. Despite the fact that Senator Barack Obama was “purportedly” born in 1961 (a year that, as we all know, was the first “upside down year” and thus does not exist in duality or singularly for that matter), I have been following him for much longer than that. Trust me. I had an eye on him for some time and frankly I can’t trust an uppity intellectual such as Senator Barack Obama, who, according to my sources, is related to Sadam Hussein and is without question the Anti-Christ. I am the author of a book that hasn’t been published yet, “The History of Toilet Paper and the Asses That Loved Them.”

Although I am not a practicing attorney, I did go to law school but my passage to the Bar was steadfastly blocked by so-called “administrators” because, apparently, “they” thought I had some sort of “moderately servere character defect.” Yeah, whatever. We all know everyone who disagrees with me is a just a liberal, socialist, marxist bastard bent on burning the constitution and replacing it with the pig latin version of the Communist Manifesto, which, according to my sources, was written by the Isreali Mossad in 1987 and first drafted by Dr. Seuss in 1783 before he received his MD.

2. Birth certificate
I, along with about seven thousand others, including Santa Claus of all people, have applied for and was denied a copy of Senator Barack Obama’s birth certificate, along with a list of the last twenty things he had eaten from the frozen foods section. This is clearly an issue of national importance, because although we know that Senator Obama is qualified, we just can’t “trust” someone like Obama because, well, we can’t. I don’t think it would be a “safe” choice, particularly with this financial crisis, which was started by marxists such as Alan Greenspan and The Invisible Hand.

RELIEF REQUESTED
The Court should decide that the misapplication, misinterpretation, miscommunication, miscombubulation, and misappropriation of the relevant statue (see Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, a photograph which is attached to this Petition) raises issues of sufficiently massive public and national importance that this Court has no choice but to entertain.

BASIS FOR GRANTING RELIEF
The constitutional issue
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), the Supreme Court of the “United States of America” ruled that when a defendant is interrograted while in custody, the police, prior to that interrogation, must provide certain warnings and, if they don’t, the resulting confession will be suppressed. Similarly, this Court should give me Obama’s original birth certificate as well as the list of the last twenty things he has consumed from the frozen foods section, FORTHWITH.

The procedural issue
There is an anomaly under the procedues of Hawaii law, i.e., to provide someone with no standing to even request such items to get such items, and to provide someone with such items even though the request in the first place is frivolous. Of course, as we all know, legal procedures are simply procedures of the intellectual and we all have seen what has happened when we are too “intellectual” with things. After all, just look at the Constitution. Thus, procedurally, I am asking, and again pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, and it’s companion case, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), that this Court should grant me RELIEF as well as the money to publish my next book, “Obama: The Love of My Life and His Connection to the Crisis in the Suez and the Race to Space (Part 7: Where is the Dog?).”

The substantive issue
There are clearly no substantive issues here.

CONCLUSION
Most respectfully, Petitioner asks this Court to call me as soon as possible. I’ll be hanging out on 73rd Street and Lexington tonight with my friend Lester.

DATED: October 24, 2008
Honolulu, HI
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTOPHER JONES

Advertisements

Obama Born In Kenya? (The real question: What planets are Philip J. Berg, Andy Martin, and Judah Benjamin from?)

In a seemingly last ditch effort to kickstart a dying campaign, lapdogs of McCain/Palin, such as Philip J. Berg, Andy Martin, and Judah Benjamin, have again been pushing the theory that Obama is ineligible to run for president.  In the beginning, the theory of the lapdogs was that Obama was not a “natural born citizen,” because his mother was not old enough to qualify Obama for automatic citzenship.  This “theory” was quickly refuted with proof that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 p.m.  As most people know, Hawaii gained statehood on August 21, 1959.  Thus, as the credible, corroborated, and accurate proof revealed, Obama was born in the United States and was a natural born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized one.

Apparently recognizing the overwhelming evidence, the lapdogs of McCain/Palin, particularly Philip J. Berg, Andy Martin, and Judah Benjamin, decided to change their theory . . . not suprisingly.  Instead of presenting a hyper-technical argument about what it means to be a natural-born citzen — such as the now refuted arguments against McCain’s eligibility (he was born in the Panama Canal Zone) — Berg, Martin, and Benjamin have taken a new approach that shows how desperate the McCain/Palin campaign has become.  The theory is this:  Senator Barack Obama was born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya.  Unfortunately for Berg, Martin, and Benjamin, there is no credible, corroborated, and accurate proof of this at all.  Not an iota, unless you include the unnamed “sources” that they claim to have.  Of course, they have been unnamed for some time now, probably because they don’t exist and, even if they did, their information can neither be corroborated or deemed credible.  For McCain supporters, I don’t know whether it’s the guilt that is driving supporters to believe what is essentially bull at its highest and purest level.

Judah Benjamin, who I take it is one of the “scholars” of this Barack-isn’t-a-natural-born-citizen-theory, has used a “clever” way of making an argument, similar to the technique Palin used during the debates when the moderator asked her to talk about the economy and Palin said, “I would like to talk about energy policy.”  Yeah, okay.  Do you think we’re that stupid?  Benjamin spends a whole article assuming — without pointing to any proof — of how Barack and all the democracts violated all these laws IF Barack, in fact, was born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya.  Through the article, the “if” slowly disappears and then, towards the end of the article, it becomes a fact (for example: “alternatively, his UK and Colonies Birth Certificate issued in Mombasa in August 1961 could be [a] fraudulent and Illegal Document” . . . what birth certificate issued in Mombasa???) 

Here’s an example of Mr. Benjamin’s, err, thorough reasoning:

Unfortunately for [Barack Obama], his actions in regard to the Admission of his UK & Colonies and Kenyan Citzenships and his Indonesian Citizenship by Adoption, his frequent apparent Breaches of the Logan Act, his probable breaches of the Hobbs Act, the Hatch Act, USC Title 18 Part One Chapter 63 Section 1346 and the RICO statute make this defense wholly untenable, especially when one considers the fact that [Barack Obama] holds a JD from Harvard Law.

Interesting.  Too bad none of this actually makes a lick of sense.  Mr. Benjamin then goes on to talk about a resolution in April 2008 stating that McCain is eligible to be president.  The resolution, which was non-binding, stated, “There is no evidence of the intention of the framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s president.”  Mr. Benjamin, apparently either because he doesn’t know how to read or just wants to avoid the whole purpose of the resolution, finds ominous that Barack Obama supported a clause within the resolution that stated, “Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President.”  Mr. Benjamin, in his “enlightenment,” argues that this is the damning piece of evidence, the smoky gun behind the grassy knoll, that Obama was trying “to create a blanket resolution covering all foregin born candidates.”  Interesting, but like most of Mr. Benjamin’s claims, it does not flow from logic.  The whole point of the clause and the resolution here was that McCain, who was not born in the United States, was still a “natural born citizen” despite this fact.

In the end of his article, Mr. Benjamin get’s one thing right when he says, “I do not insist that any of this is true and to me it makes little difference if it is.” 

No kidding.  And to Philip J. Berg:  what happened to you, man?

You can find his article, along with the mysterious Clinton supporters who are now supporting McCain, here.

Bloomberg Gets His Wish: 29 to 22 to extend term limits

Just when you thought that the world was coming back to order again, there is this.  The New York City council voted to extend term limits from two to three.  Forget that New York City voters voted on this very issue, not once, but twice . . . flatly, expressly, and unequivocally rejecting proposals to extend term limits from two to three.  Forget that the main man behind this, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is an uber-billionaire who clearly held sway with the Council — all of whom, of course, now can run for another term. 

Bloomberg’s justification for extending his term limit from two to three had to do solely with the financial crisis.  Of course, let’s forget that Giuliani asked for the same thing after September 11, 2001, via a three month extension, but that was resolutely rejected.  If anything, it shows Giuliani wasn’t the brilliant politician as Bloomberg and his team of hacks are.

Christine C. Quinn, the Speaker and Bloomberg’s lap dog, commented about the extension of term limits in the most Orwellian of ways.  She said, “They should have the right to vote for the current mayor, or a new one, for their current City Council member, or a new one. That is exactly what is at stake today.”

Huh?  That seems to be putting the cart before the horse.  Yeah, sure, with an extension of term limits, voters can now choose to vote for Bloomberg, Person A, or Person B.  But that is not what’s at stake here, Ms. Quinn. 

First, what is at stake here is how an already inept council can destroy the will of the people.  Twice, and I will repeat this, twice, have the voters explicitly rejected by way of referendum any extension of term limits.  But no, apparently that doesn’t matter.  Nonetheless, the council, with the support of Bloomberg and two other billionaires, was able to get this horrific bill on the floor for a vote. . . a vote that everyone knew what the results would be, despite all the speeches by the politicians.

To be sure, as Ms. Quinn and others have pointed out, the people could vote out Bloomberg in the next election, as well as other people on the council who are enjoying the fruits of a third term that the people of the City of New York had previously took from them.  But that completely misses the point.  The point here is an abuse of the democratic process.  Plain and simple.  Just because an inept city council decided to conduct a vote doesn’t somehow bypass the abuse of the process.  There’s no “cancel out” here. 

It is also an abuse of something else that is not talked about as much:  the power of incumbency.  Incumbents, by the very fact of their office, have extraordinary power to get reelected.  Part of their job, by its very nature, includes running for reelection.  Need stats to back that up?  Just look to Congress.   For the House of Representatives, incumbents are winning more than 80 percent of the time.  For the Senate, incumbents are winning more than 75 percent of the time.  I mean, let’s look at Senator Chuck Schumer.  How many times do you see him on tv?  Sure, he’s “reporting” to the public about what’s going on but he’s also telling people, “Hey, I’m your Senator and vote for me.”  It’s free ad time. 

Term limits recognize how the power of incumbency destroys democracy, i.e., the ability of challengers to lodge a solid and credible campaign.  That’s why it’s not surprising that the voters — twice — rejected an extension of term limts.  Here, Bloomberg’s third term has essentially wiped out the chances of numerous candidates to run for election, not to mention the other “seats” in the other districts.  So, while the voters will have a choice this upcoming election, one must ask what kind of choice is it really.

And, what is particularly bothering is the apparent “emergency” that Bloomberg and by extension, the other assembly persons who are benefitting from this extra term, are using to support their term limit extension.  Yes, Bloomberg is a popular Mayor.  And yes, the financial crisis is, in fact, a crisis.  But to believe that it is such a crisis that Bloomberg and the council have the right to violate the will of the people is just ridiculous and simply overstates Bloomberg’s ability over anyone and everyone to get the job done.  Years from now, what will be the next justification?  There will always be something.  And, frankly, Bloomberg is no FDR.

What happened today was an affront to democracy.  Shame on the council.  Vote them all out.

Barack Obama and the Muslim Connection?

In the last several weeks, you may have heard or read those emails claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim.  Although for most people, the truth has been set straight that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, the larger point often is missed, and like most points that are missed, it is the more important one.  To me, the fundamental question is not whether Obama is Muslim, but whether it should even matter to the American public that he is Muslim?

I’m sure some of the reasonable people out there are already answering that question with an answer that goes something like this, “Well, it goes to his character.  If he said he wasn’t Muslim but a Christian, but he really is a Muslim, you have to ask why he would lie like that?  I can’t trust someone like that.”

That’s a perfectly reasonable answer.  But I’m sure for the majority of those people who gave that answer, what response would you give if Barack always said he was a Muslim to begin with?  The answer would probably boil down to, “I like Barack and his policies but frankly, I just don’t trust the guy.  I can’t put a finger on it.”

Political correctness has just given us new codewords.  Discrimination is still discrimination though, even by another name.

The media, along with Obama’s supporters, have for the most part taken great strides in “debunking the myth” that Obama is a Muslim.  But they haven’t taken the next step, or even the a priori step, of contending why that question is flawed to begin with.  In an election of name calling, both Obama and McCain’s attempt to put the “Muslim question” into a nice, little soundbite is not so much an example of weak political will, but the failure of the United States to be truly an inclusive place for all.

It’s that whole idea, somehow, that being called a “Muslim,” or being associated with a “Muslim,” is akin to being on the side of a terrorist.  Of course, McCain doesn’t say this directly nor does Obama.  They are politicians, after all.  Of course, there are people out there — and I’m sure if you have a yahoo or google account, you surely have received these emails — arguing that there is a fundamental connection between Islam and terrorism, and that anyone who is a Muslim must be a terrorist by default.  

The question I ask is whether McCain and Obama’s actions have essentially extended this same message?  For McCain’s part, he doesn’t do enough to quell the members of the right who are constantly trying to paint Obama as a terrorist, with suggestions that he is, in fact, a Muslim.  McCain and Palin, for their part, discuss in the most ominous of ways, Obama’s “past” catching up to him and why no one should trust him.  For Obama’s part, he doesn’t do enough to raise the question to his constituents of why it is irrelevant what his religion is in determining whether he is “patriotic” enough to be president.  In the end, for both candidates, their claims that the U.S. is an inclusive country just rings hollow. 

After all, have you seen any of these candidates visiting a Mosque?  I haven’t.  I’m sure none of these candidates would want to be caught dead within 500 miles of one. 

Change we can believe in?  For whom?

Obama/Biden Proposal: Bankruptcy Courts to Re-Adjust Interest Rates? (Or is the Cram-Down Full of Crap?)

Unless you’ve been living in cave, then surely you’ve heard or felt the effects of America’s — and now, apparently, the world’s — financial crisis.  One of the issues is what to do with all the bad mortgages and those who are on the brink of foreclosure.  Last week, during the Biden/Palin debate, Biden provided an interesting answer:

“Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now — and Barack Obama and I support it — we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you’re paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.”

Although to some pundits out there, this may seem like a completely radical idea — many will claim that a court doing anything resembling this is akin to socialism or communism — it’s not so out of left field.  What Biden, and by extension Obama, are talking about is essentially known as a “mortgage cram down.”  Yeah, it’s a pretty horrible name, but it essentially is a way to make mortgage payments more affordable once you declare bankruptcy.  In fact, Bankruptcy Law alreadly allows “lendees” an opportunity to “cram down” a second mortgage . . . but under limited circumstances. 

For instance, under 11 USC 1322(b)(2), a person filing bankruptcy under Chapter 13 may “modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaffected the rights of holders of any class of claims.” Okay, what the hell does that mean in plain english?  It means a judge can’t “cram down” or modify your mortgage if it is already secured by your principal home.

Bottom line:  under the law as it stands, if you have a bad first mortgage, then you can’t get it crammed down.  if you have a bad second mortgage, then there’s the possibility that you can get it crammed down.  This law was written at some point in the 1970s.  If you read some of the legislative history behind this section (go to google), then you see that it was designed to encourage lenders to lend money to new home buyers.

So with all that in the landscape comes the Obama/Biden proposal, which has been, in one form or another, sloshing around in the Senate for several months now . . . before the financial crisis/monster became apparent to even those George Bush scientists.  Of course, banks hate the proposal or anything that would presumably alter a contract — under the theory that all the crammed down mortgages have to be paid by someone, so that someone is going to be us “Joe-Six Packs,” in the form of double digit interest rates, the end of 10% or less down payments, or really high closing costs.  According to the bank, they’re actually thinking of our best interests.  In the current landscape, this claim certainly rings a bit hollow.  Thanks Darth Vader for your words of encourgement, but if you don’t mind, I’ll be standing way over here.

But I digress.  Although certain Republicans — particularly ones who believe that every government intervention except for national security, military spending, and corporate welfare tax breaks is one step closer to a socialist and communist America — believe that the Obama/Biden is somehow some sweeping proposal is giving their proposal more credit and more expansiveness than is due.

I know certain economic theorists get in trouble for using rational actor theory but I’m going to do so here anyway to turn the whole thing on its head.  Let’s look at that 5% percent of the population, and even the ones that are near that group, who need some serious help on their mortgage (when I mean “serious help,” I mean those borrowers who are on the verge of foreclosure or who are already in foreclosure proceedings).  Contrary to what the banks are saying, do you think the majority of rational borrowers are conspiring in a secret basement room, trying to figure out how they can get their mortgage crammed down to match the decrease in the value of their home?  Jeez, most people have no idea what that means anyway.  Frankly, the average borrower just wants to make their damn mortgage payment.  The majority of homeowners are not first and foremost considering the amount owed . . . they are considering first and foremost their monthly payments.  That’s what a rational actor would do. 

When does the issue of how much a homeowner owes become central?  Well, I would imagine when a homeowner wants to sell their house or refinance.

In the end, if the Obama/Biden plan were to pass, I’m sure there’d be a segment of the population that might decide to muck around with the bankruptcy law for a cram down.  But that certainly doesn’t represent the majority of people who truly want to reduce their mortgage payments.  And, the fact is, the Obama/Biden plan doesn’t specifically address the main issue of what the average Mr. Joe Six Pack is dealing with:  PAYMENT!!

Finally, contrary to what the banks and alarmists are saying, the Obama/Biden proposal — in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding . . . some pundits are claiming that the cram down proposal applies to everyone and anyone — does not give a borrower a windfall, in the sense of paying a lower principal amount and keeping the profits.