You've got to see this

This is a actual docket (VERIFIED) from the Supreme court for a hearing on Feb 15 this year to verify the Presidents name(s) and signatures.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F12a606.htm

I am not good at copy paste from FB but here is a link to that also if it doesn't show. I absolutely know where this came from so look first before anyone poo, poo's this. Thanks



FEBRUARY
15, 2013: The Supreme Court of the United States in full conference
will review evidence of forged I.D.'s used by the president.

From: the Law offices of Orly Taitz

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts
scheduled a case by attorney Orly Taitz dealing with Barack Hussein
Obama’s use of forged IDs to be heard in conference before the full
Supreme Court.

The case titled
Noonan, Judd, MacLeran, Taitz v Bowen provides a mountain of evidence of
Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective
Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate
and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never
assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case
provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter
registrations in the state of California alone.

Please, keep in
mind, Richard Nixon was reelected and sworn in, but later was forced to
resign as a result of Watergate. over 30 high ranking officials of
Nixon administration including Attorney General of the United States and
White House Counsel were indicted, convicted and went to prison.

Obama Forgery gate is a hundred times bigger then Watergate. More
corrupt high ranking officials, US Attorneys, AGs and judges were
complicit, committed high treason by allowing a citizen of Indonesia and
possibly still a citizen of Kenya Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack
(Barry) Soebarkah, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro to usurp the U.S.
Presidency by use of forged IDs and a stolen Social security number.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=375765

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/orly-taitz-birther-

supreme-court_n_2443077.html
(In the search box, check docket files then enter 12A606)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2976497/posts

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F12a606.htm

Docket case number 12A606

I
did go to the website for the Supreme Court of the United States and
using the docket number provided, I verified that their is a case
pending, unfortunately minimal info is provided. Certainly not as much
as is provided above. Very interesting. If he is proven to be a fraud
and removed, anything he did can and should be rescended.

Amazing why this couldn't be done before the elections and before the Inauguration

Alot of people know this shite, and they are being paid, and threatened to keep their mouths shut, or else, plain and simple- Why do you think the sumbitch is still in OUR Whitehouse? We have all the say to what the Military, and the commander in chief do, NOT the other way around-Check it out-And then, let's get him out!!

Justice John Roberts is a neo-con, just like the rest of those crony crooks, and I'll really be surprised IF he does anything at all- Obummer never should have been put in power, and we are going to pay for it with our lives down the road, watch and see- Our votes NEVER counted or mattered, because he was bought, and the voting was rigged- It's all over the place as public knowledge, but nobody seems to want to do anything about the banana farmer in the whitewashed barn-

Here is another article from Feb 4 2013, reviewing appointments of the President. This could get really good!

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has been asked
to take emergency action over the validity of President Barack Obama's
appointments to an independent agency, which were struck down by a lower
court as an unconstitutional use of executive power.

The case sets up a
potential high-stakes fight between the executive and legislative
branches over so-called recess appointments, a common tactic used by
Democratic and Republican administrations to temporarily put people in
jobs without Senate confirmation.

A federal appeals court
in Washington concluded unanimously last month that three recess
appointees to the National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to
serve because the Senate was technically in session when they were
placed on the panel in 2012.

The ruling, if upheld, could invalidate hundreds of findings by the board issued over the past year.

The decision also could
jeopardize the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a major administration priority
that grew out of the Wall Street reform law.

The labor board
appointments were challenged in a suit brought by Noel Canning, a
family-owned Yakima, Washington, bottling company, which complained the
NLRB unfairly ruled in favor of Teamsters Local 760 during contract
negotiations.

Company executives said the board lacked a binding quorum because the recess appointments made by Obama were not legal.

The five-member board has
been politically polarized in recent years as it moved from a
Republican to Democratic majority. Republicans claim the board is overly
pro union.

The White House said it
believed the decision would not affect Cordray's appointment, but did
express displeasure with the court's action.

"The decision is novel
and unprecedented. It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic
and Republican administrations," said White House Press Secretary Jay
Carney after the ruling.

The appeals court said
that allowing a president to "define the scope" of his powers over
appointments would violate the Constitution's separation of powers.

"An interpretation of
'the recess' that permits the president to decide when the Senate is in
recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the
advice-and-consent requirement, giving the president free rein to
appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time
be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is
merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."

Senate Republicans applauded the decision.

"The (court ruling)
reaffirmed that the Constitution is not an inconvenience but the law of
the land, agreeing with the owners of a family-owned business who
brought the case to the Court," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
said in a statement.

Legal experts have
disagreed on both the tactical and timing procedures by the Senate, and
whether the President has unilateral authority to override those
legislative tactics.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/politics/supreme-court-nlrb/index.html

Notice: this article was from CNN News.

Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor appointments shouls also be brought into question, PLUS the fact that these 2 should recuse themselves from these hearings do to conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned.

Apples and Oranges. I am no fan of either one, but they were legally appointed according to accepted procedures and ratified by the Senate, also in full accordance with established constitutional law. The court ruling above is about appointments that attempted to bypass the Constitutional role of the Senate in providing advice and consent through the ratification process.