2 Responses to “Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee Motion in Limine 3-22-12[1]”

1. William Reade
   March 24th, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

   It appears to me the defendants statement:

   Is without merit and inflammatory to say the least, as there were no decisions, all were
   dismissed by the members of the Judiciary without being heard on the merits. This lack
   of action by the Judiciary is termed “NONFEASANCE” on their part and according to
   Chief Justice John Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), was a
   United States Supreme Court decision most noted for John Marshall and the Court’s
   assertion of its power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters
   when the plaintiff claims that their Constitutional rights have been violated. The
   Court had previously asserted a similar jurisdiction over civil cases involving American
   parties. Determined that court acting in a manner repugnant to the Constitution is
   committing treason; that a court seizing jurisdiction where they have none and
   failing to exercise jurisdiction where they should is likewise
   committing treason.
   The question is; “Is frivolous when a party has no hope of success” a prediction based on “Prior Knowledge” of the outcome, and the assurance that the court has full intention of again resorting to “Nonfeasance”

2. Dr. Ronald Polland
   March 31st, 2012 @ 8:49 am

   I would file a file a counterclaim in federal court against the DNC that the Mississippi chapter is engaged in a conspiracy to deny Orly Taitz her civil rights for political reasons only, that they also intend to deny her right to challenge an election given evidence of fraud, and that their personal harassment and defamation of character of Ms. Taitz is also politically motivated.

   Ms. Taitx has filed perfectly legal complaints that have been illegally tampered with, sections lost, unwarranted delays, failures to repsond by the Defendent, and contempt of court committed as a part of a coordinated criminal effort to keep Ms. Taitzx complaints from being reviewed according to the letter of the law.

   The actions of the Mississippi DNC are wholly consistent with the lynch-mob mentality of the people actively obstructing justice in preventing, not just Ms. Taitz, but the entire populace of the United States who have, heretofore, been denied the knowledge of the identity and eligibility of the person known as Barack Hussein Obama II who bwgan his official campaign for President in January 2007.

   Ms. Taitz sought the true identity and Constitutional eligibility of Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, and not of the elected President, Barack Obama, the legality of that election is still in doubt and no court has ever rejected any of the other legitimate lawsuits chalenging the Constitutional eligibility of Barack OBama has ever been heard on the basis of its merits.

   On the contrary, all lawsuits were dismissed due to lack of standing of the Plaintiff.

   The situation is different, now that Candidate Obama has become President and has inflicted Ms. Taitz severe personal financial, professional, and emotional injuries for simply exercising her Constitutional rights.

   If the Plaintiff requires proof of the questions the validity of Ms. Taitz lawsuits, that they are notr frivolous, and that they have been filed solely on the volition of Ms Taitz as a concerned citizen of the United States that the Constitution, the Law of the Land, has been violated in failure to vet the candidacy the Barack Obama, and has been violated again in preventing We the People from verifying the qualifications of the position as President, this Constitutional eligibility, his citizenship status, his place of birth, and his identity at birth.

   Neither the President, nor the President’s council, nor the DNC and their council have submitted any probative evidence to address these violations. Furthermore, invalid documentation has been submitted in a deliberate attempt to subvert and compromise all legal proceedings.

   The Plaintiff need only request of the national DNC that President Barack Obama submit for expert review and authentication of documents requested from the State of Hawaii, including the microfilm from which a copy was made of his actual, hospital-issued birth registration known as the long-form birth certificate along with the actual short-form, birth certificate that the President and the DNC claim that he requested and received in June 2008, and subsequently posted a scanned copy of it on Candidate Obama’s website.

   It was the short-form birth certificate that Candidate Obama and the national DNC claimed was sufficient to prove that he was Constitutionally eligible to be President.

   Ms. Taitz and hundreds of other professionals including Constitutional scholars, attorneys, document experts, graphics experts, and employees of the Hawaii Department of Health are in agreement that Ms. Taitz lawsuits against President Obama are legitimate and that it is the Defendents, the President and the national DNC who are not standing on solid legal grounds to claim otherwise.

   The question of the Constitutionally eligibility of Barack Obama, once again, is both relevent and deserves the utmost urgency of the courts to resolve the issue beforfe November 2012 as current President Obama seeks re-election on the very same fraudulent credentials that managed to get him elected in 2008.

   By bringing this complaint, the courts may recognize the urgency of resolving the Constitutional eligibility issue on its merits, as it shuold have done already, and would pursue, with all haste, to resolve the issue before the 2012 general election.

   The Court may not be able to rescind the results of the 2008 election, but the Court may be able to set limits on what a falsely elected government official will be able to do until such time he is permanently removed from office. No re-election will be possible if President Obama fails to qualify.

Leave a Reply