The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
25 votes

Supreme Court to Review Case on Obama’s Forged Documents

I am reasonably confident that Orly will be told she does not have standing, but I am amused that this will be in front of the Supreme Court Jesters. If nothing else, they are going to have to sit down and have a nice chat amongst themselves about how to commit treason.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Is birth certificate real or not, seem cut and dry to me!

Here are Arizona officials saying that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, they are requesting to see origin of it.

Could it be America has a foreign citizen in complete control over our armed forces?

I don't care if your democrat or Republican if there is any chance this evidence could be true, it needs investigating. This is too serious to just sweep aside.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Associate Justice Elena Kagan: Denier in chief

Name: Kagan, Elena
Position: Associate Justice
State Appointed From: Massachusetts
Appointed by: President Obama
Judicial Oath Taken: August 7, 2010
Status: Current

"Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them."

Stacked deck?

It would be so nice...

It would be so nice to find just one judge or justice that has the courage and integrity to do the job they were hired to do and put this issue to bed. Has the entire legal system been bought out by our corrupt government?


The following

may or may not be applicable:

Orly at about 22 minutes...

According to this guy, these people are actors playing many different roles in further the NWO agenda. I don't know what to think! I am aware that pictures/videos, etc. can be photoshopped/altered. Is this such a case, or is he on to something?

Perhaps experts in this area could share their opinion(s) with the rest of us?!

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

There is a YouTube out there

There is a YouTube out there of Clarence Thomas saying they are "avoiding the issue".

What gives?

What gives a prosecutor standing in trying us for a traffic statute violation?

If we can only attain standing by the act of receiving verifiable harm by one's actions, then shouldn't the same standard apply to the state?


"supreme court is going to review" is just like saying
"the justice department is conducting a probe!"

LIP SERVICE, any way one looks at it.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Why was this BC issue not brought up in the campaign?

Clearly McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 did not want to touch this issue, so the Supreme court won't either. I hate to say this, but what authority does a constitution have in a democracy, where the majority rules? The fact the country was founded as a constitutional Republic has just simply been ignored by the majority. Neither party, the supreme court nor the news media have any interest in following the constitution of the old Republic. After all, aren't we all taught early on, that in our "democracy" the majority rules?

Fantastic Simple Sentence

"...what authority does a constitution have in a democracy, where the majority rules?"

That's a great way to sum up the core of the problem.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

The supremos

have already decided what they're gonna say, otherwise the would not have agreed to hear it. Kinda like the obamacare hoax, maybe they'll say he's legal because he's a tax. Supreme group of nine jokes.

I agree

I think Supreme Court had decided to exempt Obama from future liabilities of fraud. They will review the case and find Obama legitimate. Otherwise, implications are too big for the status quo Supreme Court is part of.

I was entertained thusly by a local jester.

We tried to represent ourselves in a "show me the note" case, and thought we were doing OK. The judge attentively listened for over 2 hours while we presented 60+ pages of documentation. When we got the ruling, it looked like it had been written before the hearing. He declared that we were just trying to get away with not paying for our loan because of a national problem, totally ignoring that we began our requests from the bank long before anything broke in the news about this and that we had presented evidence of robo-signing. Yesterday the news included a headline that Idaho had settle with the banks over the robo-signing fraud. It am really not even stunned by this stuff any more. When I said there was mortgage fraud, everyone said I was crazy. When the courts said there was mortgage fraud, a little money was exchanged and everyone said, "Eh, OK. Justicey enough."

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I believe that there are two

I believe that there are two variables in such an action.

The first is status and standing: Does a citizen of the corporate US actually have lawful recourse to fraud committed by a federally chartered corporation? Seems to me like an employee trying to take her emlpoyer to task for illegal corporate behavior in the corporation's own justice system. Can justice be found there? Not likely. Venue, or the proper law form is then important. Which law form gives you standing to claim rights? Do you know what all the unstated presumptions are about you and your relationship to the court and the defendant?

The second is knowing the corporate bylaws. I have read that all federally chartered banks are prohibited from lending on credit by there own charters. I have not witnessed this personally, but have met several people who claim to have walked into a courtroom with little more than the compliant and a copy of the corporate charter of the bank. The judge has no room to move at that point. It does not invalidate the contract, but reduces the borrower's liability to the principle of the loan only. If you had been paying principle of and interest on a 30 year loan for 15 years, you're probably done.

Sorry to hear it went so badly for you.

~ Engage in the war of attrition:

Will Truth, Justice & Liberty prevail?

I hear you loud and clear fishy.
They're all part of the same gang!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Miracles can happen

Miracles can happen


Miracles DO happen!


" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~