Citizen Responds to Third Circuit Court En Banc Ruling

August 9, 2011
Citizen Responds to Third Circuit Court
En Banc Ruling Against Motion to Vacate


Jedi Pauly


The Third Circuit En Banc Court on Monday upheld judge Greenaway’s refusal to recuse himself for what can only be described as a criminal conspiracy and cover-up by the entire Third Circuit judiciary in an obvious conflict of interest issue in the Purpura v Sebelius case.

Detractors have attempted to maintain that the court is only acting under the de-facto officer doctrine, and that is a valid justification for the En Banc refusal to uphold the rule of law.

The de-facto officer doctrine does not apply in this case.  It might apply for military personnel, or for Obama carrying out the laws that were already on the books, or for some limited executive orders powers within the Executive branch of government, but it cannot apply to those whose position and authority is obtained by willful fraud and knowing criminal conspiracy which includes any judges’ appointments, or other appointments that require the consent of Congress, when that very Congress knows that Obama is not legitimate and are themselves refusing to obey the will of the People (Constitution) in an outright willful rebellion of unlawful authority against the People.  This ruling is not a ruling based upon the de-facto officer doctrine; rather, it is an unlawful political statement that the resistance by the People to the willful, unlawful, usurped authority of the government, within every branch of government, including this Third Circuit court, will not be tolerated or permitted no matter what the rules of due process say.  This is a prime example of how broken the system is, and corrupt.

The entire problem with the analysis of the detractors is their belief that there is any question regarding Obama’s legitimacy, or that it takes a judicial finding to establish what is meant by “natural born” or that Obama is not a lawful President.  Their analysis is like saying that if a foreign government invades and establishes a rival unlawful government, the people have no rights in the law or due process to resist this unlawful government.  They are saying that the laws of Nature that govern all humans (natural born) are a matter only for the courts to determine and establish and is their purview alone, and not under the authority of the sovereign People to comprehend and apply in order that the government and law is a tool belonging to the People for their benefit.  If the de-facto officer doctrine applies in this situation, then the entire relationship of who is the master and who is the servant is reversed and the government is a power unto itself, and there is no point to the Constitution at all, and there can never be any conflicts of interest.  Taking their analysis a step further, Eric Holder cannot be in a conflict of interest then, or be compelled to prosecute Obama for any crimes he might commit or has committed, because his appointment is lawful by the de-facto officer doctrine.  Therefore, any criminal complaint brought to the Justice Department against Obama can just be quashed and hidden behind his sovereign immunity making Obama to be above the rule of law by the de-facto officer doctrine, so that he can commit any crime and get away with it.  I don’t think this is what was ever intended by the use of the de-facto officer doctrine.

The natural born wording in the Constitution is not there for the judiciary or government to interpret and tell the People what it means or does not mean.  We the People wrote it in plain English, and it is obvious that it means an inherited citizenship from a U.S. citizen father or parents plural, and it has nothing at all to do with your place of birth or whether or not you are born into the privilege of citizenship.  Obama is clearly a criminal usurper and knows he is not qualified.  Congress obviously knows he is not qualified and so do the court and judges.  The judges knew when they were appointed that Obama was not legitimate and had no lawful authority to make their appointments, but they did not care and went along with it fraudulently.  They are all engaged in a criminal conspiracy to keep their jobs and power over the people and prevent the People from having any control over their own government or rule of law.

The Obama supporters and the government are hiding behind technicalities of law that might apply in innocent civil situations where the appointees are not to blame for their appointment.  That is not the case here.  This is a criminal conspiracy case with the appointees actively involved in the unlawful activity and who are themselves responsible for their own condition.  To say that their appointments and actions are protected by law is a mockery of truth, justice, and the rule of law.  It is the criminal corrupt nature of both the appointment and the appointee that is at issue and why there is an obvious conflict of interest in this case.  If everyone involved in these appointments is knowingly acting without lawful authority, which includes Obama, the Congress and the appointees themselves, then what you have is a criminal racketeering enterprise going on to deprive the citizens of the rule of law for personal gain.  To say that this is permitted by the de-facto officer doctrine is an insane analysis of the situation and overturns the entire concept of natural sovereignty and a government base upon the rule of law.