- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Man critical of Obama case judge visited by marshals
Posted By Bob Unruh On 03/21/2009 @ 12:15 am In Front Page | Comments Disabled
A Washington, D.C., man who believes Barack Obama probably isn’t eligible to be president – and colorfully stated as much to a federal judge who dismissed a case challenging Obama’s residency in the White House – says he got a visit from U.S. marshals for his exercise of free speech.
Jesse Merrell told WND he was reacting to Judge James Robertson’s decision to throw out a case challenging Obama’s eligibility because the issue had been thoroughly “twittered.”
Merrell sarcastically gave the judge a “good-for-you.”
“How dare people use a flimsy thing like the Constitution to darken your
sanctimonious door!” he wrote to the judge. “The insane idea that a blue-gum baboon slashing our Constitution has to prove U.S. citizenship – as our silly old Constitution demands – is too absurd
to consider in the sacred chambers of the tiny tin gods of the Potomac,
adorning the royal purple and sipping Jim Jones Kool-Aid.
“Thanks to smug, slimy shysters like you, Obama gets a free ride – snootily
stomping on our foolish Constitution, which supercilious idiots like you
have long ago shredded for their own stupid opinions!” Merrell continued in the letter, a copy of which he provided to WND.
He finished with his speculation on what “ought” to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report.
A short time later, he said he found two U.S. marshals on his doorstep.
“After reading your story about Federal Judge James Robertson dismissing a
suit challenging Obama’s natural born citizenship, and suggesting sanctions,
I wrote him a very critical letter,” Merrell told WND. “Two U.S. marshals came to visit me, making threats to silence me.
“I told them unless the First Amendment had been repealed, or they had a
warrant for my arrest, we had nothing to discuss,” he continued. “But they insisted on coming in, and making further threats.
“I responded with another letter, with firm language, but nothing I haven’t
used for 30 years, and quoting Thomas Jefferson’s warning to bind judges
with the ‘chains of the Constitution’ to prevent mischief.”
WND called the U.S. marshals service for comment, but there was no comment on the specific case. A WND message left for one of the officers involved also was not returned.
A media office spokeswoman who took the message did confirm that “anyone who may write a letter referencing a judge or put something in a letter causing the marshals to be concerned about the well-being of a judge, they would look into it.”
Merrell told WND his particular dislike of “government tyranny” has existed “since my fourth-great-grandfather, Captain Benjamin Merrell, was hanged – hanged, drawn and quartered – by the British Royal Governor of North Carolina in 1771 for protesting high and unjust taxes.”
Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 335,000 others and sign up now!
In his followup letter to the judge, Merrell’s language was a little more salty.
“I told your Gestapo goons, of course, that unless the First Amendment had
been repealed, or they were there to arrest me, that we had nothing to talk
about.,” Merrell’s letter said .”One of your Brown-Shirt Nazi bullies, however, could not resist threatening me with some obscure law – one he didn’t know where it was, or when it was
created – which he said made it a crime to say something that caused a
federal judge ‘emotional distress.’
“Emotional distress? What unbelievably unadulterated horses—!” Merrell wrote. “What about the repulsive, stomach-turning ‘emotional distress’ you
black-robed baboons speciously dish out to the American people
daily – haughtily spitting on our precious Constitution with your nauseating,
decency-stomping, judicial-jack— slobber!
“If it is illegal for a Constitution-loving citizen to chastise a
Constitution-scorning judge, who has spitefully spat on America’s
consecrated moral bedrock, then the slimy, steel-laden tentacles of
unspeakable tyranny are already wrapped tightly around helpless
citizens – awaiting the final hideous strangulation.
“But not as long as one end of my red-blooded tongue is loose!” Merrell’s letter said.
He put the challenge directly to the judge:
“The Constitution clearly states, with no possible ambiguity – in Article 2,
Section 1 – that ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of
the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall
be eligible to the Office of President,’” he wrote.
“America is going down the drain – economically and Constitutionally, with
terrorists and illegal aliens pouring across our borders like invading
armies practically unopposed – but our insufferable, over-bloated,
dictatorial government, while turning a blind eye to all that, has time and
money to send two high-paid federal marshals – probably $130,000.00 each – to
harass a citizen daring to exercise his precious First Amendment rights,
which you want to destroy,” he wrote.
“When you solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution – then
loathsomely lacerate and despicably desecrate that hallowed
document – perhaps you should fear for your safety, for you have stopped
being a dutiful servant of the people, and started arrogating unto yourself
the venomous trappings of their tyrannical slave-master,” he wrote.
“Oh, and my ancestor, Captain Benjamin Merrell, wasn’t just hanged – but
hanged, drawn and quartered: which means he was hanged, but taken down while
yet alive, his abdomen violently sliced open and his entrails cruelly cut
out and brutally thrown in his face and set afire…and then his body
barbarically slashed into four quarters,” Merrell wrote. “So, naturally, I’m more than a little suspicious of dictatorial power such
as you brandish. And I’m not alone.”
WND reported a challenge to the judge from the lawyer handling the case. Robertson threatened attorney John D. Hemenway with sanctions for representing client Gregory S. Hollister. Hollister is a retired military officer subject to being recalled who is demanding to know Obama’s eligibility to discern whether any orders from the president would be legal.
Robertson dismissed the case, ridiculing questions of eligibility as having already been “blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged.”
Hollister is represented by Philadelphia lawyer Philip Berg, who has brought several motions on the eligibility dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court that have been ignored. Hemenway acted as local counsel in filing the action on behalf of Hollister.
Robertson wrote: “The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel’s satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.
“The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court,” Robertson wrote.
Hemenway has responded with a suggestion that if the judge wants to pursue sanctions, the attorney then would seek a discovery hearing to demand the president’s original birth certificate as court procedures would allow.
The clients concerns also are valid, he wrote.
“These are not frivolous matters, as the
learned Judge Robertson has suggested. Possible illegal orders are a matter of great
concern to officers in the armed forces. … The legality of orders in and out of combat is of paramount importance,” he wrote.
The lawyer also criticized the judge for citing hearsay in his court opinion.
“It is not helpful for a United States
district judge to endorse obfuscation when a constitutional issue is involved. Under
these circumstances, to threaten sanctions against an attorney who, in good faith assisted
in the filing of a lawsuit involving issues none of the many judges and attorneys from
coast to coast have found ‘frivolous’ is to employ the Rule 11 as a device to deprive the
undersigned attorney of his civil rights and the right to due process. Without even a
hearing or access to discovery being granted to defend against the charges, such a
sanction would be a veritable lynching,” Hemenway challenged.
“If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway
should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents
have permitted in the past,” he said.
“The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular
case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of
those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery,” Hemenway said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Further complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation’s passport he traveled to Pakistan.
Lawyers and plaintiffs in a multitude of lawsuits also have asked why, if a birth certificate actually reflects that Obama was born in Hawaii, has he spent sums estimated by observers of up to $1 million hiring various law firms to keep concealed his birth certificate, his college records and other documentation.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, told WND a demand for verification of Obama’s eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are “garbage,” here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/92277/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.