simple. Fed law *requires* STRIKING the Defs' pleadings.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Torm Howse Torm Howse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

simple. Fed law *requires* STRIKING the Defs' pleadings.

Hello.  After noticing several fatal legal errors in the Defendants' recent Memorandum filed in support of their Motion to Dismiss, I wanted to point out the most obvious, and simplest, clearest way to knock them back to the stone age -- the fact that the Defendants' choice of "representation" in this matter is absolutely fatal, and also absolutely requires that ALL of their filings be immediately stricken from the record (also leaving the actual Defendants in [too late, too bad, so sad, for them..] clear Default for failing to timely answer with any *valid* and *lawful* responsive pleadings).

This is an EASY one.

You see, the Senate and Senators have their own *mandatory/statutory* representation:
(US Code, Title 2)
§ 288. Office of Senate Legal Counsel
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288----000-.html
see also
§ 288c. Defending the Senate, committee, subcommittee, member, officer, or employee of Senate
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288---c000-.html
...but, most definitely, the AG (nor *any* of his DOJ staff, the U.S. Attorneys... as in this OCA case..) absolutely *cannot* represent either the U.S. Senate, current Speaker Pelosi, Reid, or etc., when it comes to ANY question of constitutionality of their acts, but the representation *must* be ONLY the Senate Legal Counsel, for any/all of them... because of:
§ 288h. Defense of certain constitutional powers
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288---h000-.html
and, also because of:
§ 288k. Attorney General relieved of responsibility
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288---k000-.html

The United States Code ("federal law", for you non-legal types) also provides several like mandatory items to slash Obama and his mandatory non-AG, non-DOJ, etc., representation in this case, too.

This case is soooo easy to slam-dunk for the Citizens:
-- direct legal standing is **expressly** provided by BOTH the Federal Constitution AND in the United States Code, SEVERAL times over... i.e., take your pick of which expressly-provided legal standing(s) you'd like to use.
-- directly from just 16 words in the Federal Constitution, the "parlimentary procedure" of this OCA ("ACA") process was and is entirely fatal, already, from the beginning (i.e., the supposed "magic 60" of a supposedly Dem-controlled Senate is an EASY one to smash to pieces - the entire Senatorial voting on this blasphemous "ACA" bill was invalid, from the start... totally VOID "ab initio" or "from the beginning")... in other words, this "Hell-th Care" bill was null and void from the beginning, legally, and there's not one damn thing they can do about it now.  Again, too late, too bad, so sad, for them.
-- etc.

I have at least two dozen simple, direct ways to slam-dunk this case to shreds, instantly.  I have invited Van, Tony, Gregg, Dawn, et al., to contact me again for more fun and victory :)

God Speed with His Blessings.

Sincerest Regards,
------------------------------------------
Mr. Torm Howse
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Instructor,
United Civil Rights Councils of America
http://unitedcivilrights.org
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Trustee,
Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - US
http://paao-us.com
Founder, Owner, President,
The FIDO Network
http://fidonetwork.com
General Contact:
(317) 286-2538 office
(888) 738-4643 fax
indianacrc@earthlink.net

Increase Your FAITH!

Van Irion Van Irion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: simple. Fed law *requires* STRIKING the Defs' pleadings.

Torm,

This is a very interesting post. Next week I'll be preparing our opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. At that time I'll take a closer look at this and will contact you to discuss.

Van
Torm Howse Torm Howse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: simple. Fed law *requires* STRIKING the Defs' pleadings.

Thanks, Van.  Last week, I privately emailed yourself, Tony, Gregg and Dawn, providing my direct cell number, since the public info is fax and Google Voice leave-a-message only..  Please disregard my earlier apparent frustration in said emails, from just trying to help you guys better.. thx.

Here's another teaser, one of my most favorites, from Title 5 of the United States Code:
§ 7311. Loyalty and striking
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00007311----000-.html
"An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;"

Cheers,
Torm
panpan2523 panpan2523
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: simple. Fed law *requires* STRIKING the Defs' pleadings.

In reply to this post by Torm Howse
There is a range of Ash shoes to match different kinds of outfits. They are available in various styles so you have no difficulty in choosing the type of shoes that can match your outfit and project the right personality.http://topsheossale.com/ ash store   The clothes that you choose to wear will be complemented well with these shoes and this is the best thing about this brand. You can simply choose from a wide selection of shoes from Ash whether it is for outdoors or party. The shoes from Ash make heads turn your way if you match the shoes with your attire to get a great combination.