Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Obama Dismisses Indictment Against Fugitive Bombing Terrorist - Part VII: My Last Chapter

This, I believe, is the last chapter that I will write regarding the Elizabeth Duke matter.  Last July, I began documenting my efforts to understand why the indictment against the Capitol Bombing, Fugitive Elizabeth Duke had been dismissed by the Obama administration under curious circumstances.  Those circumstances included the entry of an Order which falsified the record by Magistrate Judge Robinson who feloniously signed that order indicating that she was a District Court Judge when she most certainly was not.

My efforts took me to the Supreme Court where my important questions regarding the hygiene of the criminal justice system were rebuffed by being ignored. My subsequent efforts to invoke the judicial machinery to investigate and sanction Magistrate Judge Robinson for her patent misbehavior have now likewise been ignored.

Though purportedly mailed to me on February 19, 2014, I only recently received the Order indicating that Magistrate Judge Robinson will receive no rebuke for misrepresenting the record regarding the dismissal of the Elizabeth Duke indictment.

Though this is my last chapter on Elizabeth Duke, others are still working on their chapters and the Epilogue of the Elizabeth Duke matter I believe is far from being written. Go Port Authority Police.

Hence, this blog which has been my “Reflections on the Growth of Legal Tyrants and a Justice System Which Has Evolved to Threaten – Rather than Protect – Our Liberty” is coming to a close.  I have a few more things to say, but it is now clear to me that the Justice System is no longer threatening our liberty, but indeed has now completely revoked that Liberty won at such a high cost and has now insulated themselves from any consequence for their unconstitutional and indeed immoral actions.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"[I]t is now clear to me that the Justice System is no longer threatening our liberty, but indeed has now completely revoked that Liberty won at such a high cost and has now insulated themselves from any consequence for their unconstitutional and indeed immoral actions."

Or: Sibley is wrong. *shrug*

Phlegmenco Dancer said...

Put another way, Mr. Sibley has blown the importance of his self-appointed role as savior of the nation way out of proportion and is simply behaving like a crybaby...

At Runnynose, at Runnynose,
What says the snot at Runnynose?
The slippery snot that makes the trip
From tip of schnoz to upper lip
And lingers as postnasal drip
At Runnynose, at Runnynose,
Oh, hear them sniff at Runnynose:
'You mustn't wipe it on your sleeve
Or sneeze into your kilt's fine weave.'
The teardrops flowed without reprieve,
We saw 'em weep at Runnynose!

Anonymous said...

~In free republics comprised of free citizens, “allegiance” is not “owed” to anything except the foundational charter of the nation; the Constitution.

It is not owed to a sovereign, a government, nor to its leaders, so there is no analogy in America to British allegiance “owed” to the dictator on the throne “authorized” by the Divine Right of Kings.
No such allegiance is an element of a society of free men who owe each other allegiance, -which means they owe each other their service in the defense of their society and nation, -regardless of the cost to them.

In place of allegiance to the King is one’s natural duty to one’s own. All who males and are adult, healthy and able, are obligated by natural and national bonds to defend the old and the young, the female and the disabled, from foreign conquest and subjugation, or worse. They are obligated to defend their mothers and wives, their sisters and daughters, their children and seniors.

Allegiance is nothing other than faithful loyalty. Loyalty is not “owed” by free men, -it is theirs to give or not give, -a personal devotion or choice, just like nationality, -which can be switched. What is “owed” is obedience to legitimate law.

In free republics, citizens are not measured by degrees of loyalty as if under a king. They are instead obligated by their co-responsibility for the survival (in freedom) of the nation.

The chosen laws of free nations include, when required, mandatory participation in national defense. One’s sense of loyalty is irrelevant.
One’s duty under law is all that is. Shirk that duty and you go to prison.
That duty springs from birth as a member of one’s parents’ society. That membership binds one to their shared duty.
Only those born of members are naturally under that duty. And no one NOT born of natural members is constitutionally allowed to be the Command-in-Chief of the armies of the nation because of the risk of secret loyalty to a foreign power resulting from having an alien parent.

Anonymous said...

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Jane Whitman said...

Anonymous (5:21 PM) wrote, "That is the dumbest thing I have ever read."

Had I not read Vogt's "legal paperwork" I'd agree without reservation.

Anonymous said...

A majority of men are hard wired to having their ears and eyes rewarded with eye candy and false words.
If you're not educated in history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Anonymous said...


Amen brother.

We are Right! They are Wrong!

HistorianDude said...

How wonderful. More vacuous platitudes leavened with wishful thinking. If they make you feel better, great. But in the meantime, Barack Obama remains the President of the United States, and you have still lost every court cases.More than 225 of them.

The falling boulder will crush you, whether you believe in it or not.

Anonymous said...

Is it perfectly normal and natural for a Chinese woman in Shanghai (with Chinese ancestors dating back two thousand years) to marry and produce children with an African from Kenya, such as Obama’s brother who lives there?

Such duality of background is the opposite of normal, just as is dual-citizenship in dissimilar countries with different language, culture, history, law, and racial or ethnic background.

Hermaphrodites are the equivalent to the children of such pairings.

President by Right of Ancestral Blood

In America, post-independence, the contested dichotomy (concerning the presidency) was not “citizen born? or citizen made?” but instead was regarding how one was “citizen born”. Was one a natural citizen by blood or a border-based citizen by common law?”

natural female”, and yet even that is technically ambiguous.

All natural females are naturally female, but like natural-ization, there exists in the modern world its gender equivalent; female-ization. Foreigners who are preparing to become citizens by following the requirements for naturalization (learning U.S. history, government, and the English language) are equivalent to pre-op “shemales”.

Shemales were born with one gender but will undergo surgery to change to the opposite gender via female-ization surgery. Once it is complete and all healing has occurred, they are a new creation with a new gender; just like a foreigner with a new nationality. But that is not the correct way to describe new Americans. They do not have a new nationality because they have become Americans, organically, so to speak, by our American fiction of citizenship equality.

HistorianDude said...

What a weird, absurd and completely nonsensical analogy.

1) Children of a Chinese mother and African father will produce hermaphroditic children at no greater a rate than two Chinese parents, or two African parents.

2) Hermaphroditic children may be abnormal, but they are completely natural.

There is no constitutional requirement that the present be a "normally born citizen."

Jane Whitman said...

Ding, ding, ding!

In the how-can-you-tell-a-nutjob contest, I think we've found the grand prize winner.

Come to think of it, I don't know that we've ever had a hermaphroditic President, have we? Could James Buchanan have secretly been a pre-op shemale?

Stay tuned as the next Constitutional crisis unfolds.

Bill Nelson said...

If you argue with an insane person, the bystanders won't be able to tell which one is which. I'm confused. Which one is the Birther, and which one is the Obot? Are they both the same?

Anonymous said...

Poe's law, baby. It's not just a suggestion.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Nash was saying that unions between Chinese and Africans necessarily produce hermaphrodites.

Rather, I think the point he was trying to make was that products of such unions are the LEGAL equivalent of hermaphrodites with regard to Presidential Eligibility as Natural Born Citizens.

Anonymous said...

Nash? Hmmmm.

Do you think he made his point? Or do you think his analogy was as completely idiotic as the rest of us do?

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 5:19

Not sure what you mean by "completely idiotic as the rest of us".

The NetTraceCyber app thinks the main participants are "Nash" and "Epi". If you are asking which is the most insane, I would only observe that insanity seems to be contagious on these boards. Beware of whom you argue with. You might catch it.

Anonymous said...

That you are unsure of what I mean reflects on you and on you alone.

Anonymous said...

The Founding Fathers were concerned that a transvestite might get into high office and therefore, effectively become a usurper.

However, their concerns were based on mistaken ideas of the time. They believed in Slavery, and they also believed that being a transvestite was the same thing as being a homosexual.

Today, we know better. If it were left up to me, I would remove almost all restrictions on eligibility, except for age, and I am not sure about keeping that.

The whole concept of "natural born" is poorly understood and obsolete in application. I say, amend the Constitution, and get rid of it.

If a person can go through the fundraising and news reports and the debates, and the dirty campaigns where every aspect of their personal and financial life is exposed, and still win the vote of the American People, then I said they are qualified.

Patriarch said...

All your links to court documents have been deleted.
Please post the case number of the Duke dismissal by Robinson.

Thank you.

Patriarch said...

I believe I found the case United States v. Duke / Criminal Case 88-cr-00145 [DAR

Post a Comment

Play nice!