AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I appreciate that so far you have demonstrated little interest in anything of substance on this thread, but I was hoping that maybe others might.

Something of substance was posted on this thread? Really? Do you have a link?

Joe,

Obviously Foxfyre intended to post something of substance on this thread. You just have a reading comprehension problem and don't understand what she meant.

I have this vision of Foxfyre defending her written words to a Senate committee. "You have a reading comprehension problem, Senator."

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

The president is a federal government ACTOR. Not that I would tell you how to construct your case, but I wouldn't sue him in his personal capacity for money damages; I would sue him in his official capacity because, as the chief executive officer of this county, it's his job to enforce laws that allegedly deprive YOU of your constitutional rights. (YOU have to have standing to bring a lawsuit.) Accordingly--not that I know much about this--I would sue for a declaratory judgment that specified federal laws/policies are unconstitutional and I would seek injunctive relief (against the president) to prevent their enforcement.

...

You have alleged that Obama deprived you of your property without due process of law and that Obama took your private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In other words, this is not a frivolous, run of the mill, tax protestor case. (It isn't, right?)

I do not allege: "Obama deprived [me or my family] of [our] property without due process of law and that Obama took [our] private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment." I allege Obama did that to other people.

I have to have standing to bring a Bivens Action. That is, I or my family have to have been deprived of our property as a consequence of Obama's actions. That is not the case. My wife and I have not yet been deprived of any of our property as a consequence of Obama's actions. None of my children have yet been deprived of any of their property as a consequence of Obama's actions.

Consequently, A Bivens Action on my part at this time would be a frivolous action.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I do not allege: "Obama deprived [me or my family] of [our] property without due process of law and that Obama took [our] private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment." I allege Obama did that to other people.

Oh.. so you aren't paying any taxes ican?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Consequently, A Bivens Action on my part at this time would be a frivolous action.

That doesn't seem to impede you at all here at A2K.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Consequently, A Bivens Action on my part at this time would be a frivolous action.

Geez, Debra, how could you fail to see that a lawsuit brought by ican against Obama for violating his constitutional rights would be frivolous? Even ican figured that out. Eventually.

1 Reply

@JTT,

But ican is all bark here on a2k. In real life, he's a patsy.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Consequently, A Bivens Action on my part at this time would be a frivolous action.

Geez, Debra, how could you fail to see that a lawsuit brought by ican against Obama for violating his constitutional rights would be frivolous? Even ican figured that out. Eventually.

Ican mentioned he has two lawyer friends. I just realized he was referring to Debra Law and joefromchicago.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

LOL

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Consequently, A Bivens Action on my part at this time would be a frivolous action.

Geez, Debra, how could you fail to see that a lawsuit brought by ican against Obama for violating his constitutional rights would be frivolous? Even ican figured that out. Eventually.

Ican mentioned he has two lawyer friends. I just realized he was referring to Debra Law and joefromchicago.

I was momentarily swept away in the alleged truth of ican's accusations. Instead of plunging off the deep end into frivolous waters, I should have retained my composure and fought off that blonde moment. Thank goodness joefromchicago came forward with his unwavering common sense and suggested the possible services of the brilliant and successful Orly Taitz to our good friend, ican. Ms. Taitz has the fortitude that few possess to stare Rule 11 sanctions in the face, defy the possible consequences of frivolity, and still achieve a successful outcome for her client.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Oh.. so you aren't paying any taxes ican?

Oh, so parados, so you think Obama is to blame for all the taxes I am required to pay and do pay!

0 Replies

OBAMA IS ACTING IN VIOLATION OF USA LAW TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES WHICH VIOLATE USA LAW.
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is to first impeach President Obama, or initiate his removal from the presidency some other lawful way. He is violating the Constitution of the USA that he swore to support. He is leading the transfer of private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

OBAMA IS ACTING IN VIOLATION OF USA LAW TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES WHICH VIOLATE USA LAW.
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is to first impeach President Obama, or initiate his removal from the presidency some other lawful way. He is violating the Constitution of the USA that he swore to support. He is leading the transfer of private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

Didn't you post this already? About a hundred times?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually, the current count is 102, and counting. LOL

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

OBAMA IS ACTING IN VIOLATION OF USA LAW TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES WHICH VIOLATE USA LAW.
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is to first impeach President Obama, or initiate his removal from the presidency some other lawful way. He is violating the Constitution of the USA that he swore to support. He is leading the transfer of private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

Your statements are contradictory, ican.

You claim that YOU personally pay taxes.

You claim that your allegation that Obama is leading the transfer of private property from persons who earned it to persons who have not earned it is a violation of the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment.

You claim that your allegation concerns taxpayer money. You claim that your contemplated lawsuit would be a class action lawsuit for the benefit of all taxpayers. You claim that you are a taxpayer.

HOWEVER, you then asserted that Obama has never harmed you personally, even though you're a taxpayer, thus you do not have standing to bring a lawsuit against Obama for violations of your constitutional rights. You said that a lawsuit would be FRIVOLOUS.

BUT, you are calling for the impeachment of President Obama on the same grounds that you identified as a FRIVOLOUS basis for a lawsuit. If Obama is not violating your constitutional rights as a taxpayer, he cannot possibly be violating anyone else's constitutional rights as a taxpayer.

Isn't your call for impeachment just as FRIVOLOUS as a proposed lawsuit?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes, I posted this already:
OBAMA IS ACTING IN VIOLATION OF USA LAW TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES WHICH VIOLATE USA LAW.
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is to first impeach President Obama, or initiate his removal from the presidency some other lawful way. He is violating the Constitution of the USA that he swore to support. He is leading the transfer of private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

I've posted that statement so far less than a dozen times. More to come! Obama's actions, if continued, will do so much irreparable harm to America, that a great many people will suffer--both rich and poor and middle class! Even if I were to die before I personally am harmed by Obama's actions, I feel obligated to all those I love to do what I can to lawfully remove this scourge from our government.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I've posted that statement so far less than a dozen times.

But this was exactly the magic number of postings required to render all Debra's thoughts irrelevant and start the process to save the nation. Well done, Itry!

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

ican comments are in blue.

Debra Law wrote:

You said that a lawsuit would be FRIVOLOUS.

For me to file a lawsuit against Obama would be frivilous, because neither I, my wife, or my children have NOT YET suffered loss of property due to Obama's unlawful actions.

BUT, you are calling for the impeachment of President Obama on the same grounds that you identified as a FRIVOLOUS basis for a lawsuit. If Obama is not violating your constitutional rights as a taxpayer, he cannot possibly be violating anyone else's constitutional rights as a taxpayer.

I am not calling for Obama's impeachment on the grounds that I, my wife, or my children have NOT YET suffered a loss of property due to Obama's unlawful actions. I am calling for Obama's impeachment on the grounds that many of my fellow Americans have suffered loss of property due to Obama's unlawful actions.

Isn't your call for impeachment just as FRIVOLOUS as a proposed lawsuit?

NO! My call for Obama's impeachment is NOT FRIVOLOUS. It is NOT FRIVOLOUS because so many other's than me, my wife, and my children have suffered property losses because of Obama's unlawful actions. I am supporting others whose filing of such a lawsuit against Obama would NOT BE FRIVOLOUS.

=================================
OBAMA IS ACTING IN VIOLATION OF USA LAW TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES WHICH VIOLATE USA LAW.
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is to first impeach President Obama, or initiate his removal from the presidency some other lawful way. He is violating the Constitution of the USA that he swore to support. He is leading the transfer of private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

2 Replies

Under the category heading, "Aw shucks!"

Sinclair Broadcasting near bankruptcy... http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2009/07/14/daily.9/

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I am calling for Obama's impeachment on the grounds that many of my fellow Americans have suffered loss of property due to Obama's unlawful actions.

To show your sense of fairness, isn't that a MAC ideal, and to illustrate to all that you're not just a greedy little bugger, launch a lawsuit on behalf of all those Iraqis who died because of GW's unlawful actions. Launch a lawsuit against the US government and Dow on behalf of all the children born with birth defect because of Agent Orange, launch a lawsuit ... the list is long long long.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Ok.. so you claim you pay taxes.

But if Obama hasn't taken any of your property then you must think income is not property. That would invalidate most of your "constitutional" argument ican.

3 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know