Dinar Daily
Welcome to Dinar Daily Discussions.

Logging in with your USERNAME allows you to participate in discussions, see what has recently been posted, and other options. Guests can post but they do have limited abilities.

We are NOT a guru forum. We are a dinarian forum. The opinions expressed on the forum do not reflect the of opinion of Dinar Daily specifically, but rather reflect the views of the individual posters only.

Disclamer:

We are in compliance with, "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."


Key Words
Adam Montana, AdminBill, Benjamin Fulford, Currency Exchange, David Schmidt, Dinar, Dinar Guru, Dinar Recaps, Dinar Rv, Dinar Scam, Dr Clarke, Frank26, Gary Larrabee, Gurus, Guru Hunters, JerzyBabkowski, Kaperoni, Kenny, Monetary Reform, Mnt Goat, My Ladies, Okie, Poppy, RamblerNash, Ray Renfrow, Redenomination, Revaluation, Ssmith, TNTBS, Tnt Tony, WING IT, We Are The People, Willis Clark, WSOMN, Yosef, Zap

You've got to see this

Post new topic   Reply to topic

Go down

You've got to see this

Post  rick152 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:20 pm

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

*****************
Love understands, Love supports, comforts and, cares for. Love forgives. Love also honors, respects and, believes
so please;
Love each other and yourself ...rick152
avatar
rick152
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 2574
Join date : 2011-06-19
Age : 60
Location : Eastern Ohio

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: You've got to see this

Post  rick152 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:29 pm

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.

*****************
Love understands, Love supports, comforts and, cares for. Love forgives. Love also honors, respects and, believes
so please;
Love each other and yourself ...rick152
avatar
rick152
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 2574
Join date : 2011-06-19
Age : 60
Location : Eastern Ohio

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: You've got to see this

Post  happywelshguy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:42 pm

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

bounce

*****************
"I AM THAT "I AM"

ENJOY EVERY PRECIOUS MOMENT!

LOVE IS LOUDER!

EVERY SOUL IS PRECIOUS BEYOND MEASURE!
avatar
happywelshguy
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 774
Join date : 2011-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: You've got to see this

Post  Terbo56 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:07 pm

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!!
avatar
Terbo56
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 13634
Join date : 2011-06-18
Age : 62
Location : Central Florida-

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: You've got to see this

Post  Kevind53 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:12 pm

It looks like Justice Roberts agreed to hear this or at least render an opinion, but I do not see it on the schedule for this session.

No. 12A606
Title:
Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants
v.
Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:December 13, 2012
Lower Ct:Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:(S207078)

~~Date~~~
~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 11 2012Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 13 2012Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 26 2012Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 9 2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Jan 9 2013Application (12A606) referred to the Court.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:

Orly Taitz29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy (949) 683-5411

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Party name: Edward Noonan, et al.
Attorneys for Respondent:

Kamala HarrisAttorney General (916) 445-9555

P. O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Party name: Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State

*****************
Trust but Verify --- R Reagan Suspect

"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you."1 Thessalonians 5:14–18

       
avatar
Kevind53
Super Moderator
Super Moderator

Posts : 26998
Join date : 2011-08-09
Age : 19
Location : Umm right here!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: You've got to see this

Post  Terbo56 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:22 pm

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-
avatar
Terbo56
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 13634
Join date : 2011-06-18
Age : 62
Location : Central Florida-

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: You've got to see this

Post  rick152 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:57 pm

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.


Last edited by rick152 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total

*****************
Love understands, Love supports, comforts and, cares for. Love forgives. Love also honors, respects and, believes
so please;
Love each other and yourself ...rick152
avatar
rick152
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 2574
Join date : 2011-06-19
Age : 60
Location : Eastern Ohio

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: You've got to see this

Post  rick152 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:01 am

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.

*****************
Love understands, Love supports, comforts and, cares for. Love forgives. Love also honors, respects and, believes
so please;
Love each other and yourself ...rick152
avatar
rick152
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 2574
Join date : 2011-06-19
Age : 60
Location : Eastern Ohio

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: You've got to see this

Post  Kevind53 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:25 am

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.

*****************
Trust but Verify --- R Reagan Suspect

"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you."1 Thessalonians 5:14–18

       
avatar
Kevind53
Super Moderator
Super Moderator

Posts : 26998
Join date : 2011-08-09
Age : 19
Location : Umm right here!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic
 
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum