Welcome to The Truth News.Info

Hope you enjoy your visit!

700 architects and engineers demand investigation!!! ABOUT TIME.

Richard Gage on 911 Collapses!!! FOX 26 Fresno, CA.... Amazing, truth on Main stream media

Richard Gage gives His Review on the Collapses of the twin towers and building 7

Click Here For A Library Of Information


The Eligibility Question; How To Proceed
by Francis Steffan

For many months now there has been a discussion concerning whether or not Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barack Obama aka Barack Hussein Obama is actually a natural born citizen as required by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5: 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.

The facts known concerning this question of natural born citizenship raise serious doubts that the current man occupying the office of President qualifies under the natural born citizen clause.

However, this article is not meant to convince you that the current man occupying the office of President is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America or that he is an illegal alien. If you want to investigate the facts and questions a good place to start is at www.obamacrimes.com which is the website of attorney Phillip J. Berg.

This article is written to present what I feel is the only legal way to go about getting the many serious issues concerning the constitutional eligibility of the current United States sitting president answered in an open public forum with the force of law enforcing the demand for information, in other words, a court action.

Several attorneys have filed many different types of cases in several different legal venues to no avail. The courts are ruling that the plaintiffs have no standing. The idea behind these filings are to create an open federal lawsuit in which discovery can be conducted with the production of documents requested being enforced by a federal court. The belief, which I share, is that discovery would yield the evidence necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Barack Obama, et al, is in fact not constitutionally eligible to the office of President.

On its face this sounds like sound legal theory that should produce the desired results, after all, what is being requested is only an opportunity to examine certain documents which would serve to prove Barack Obama's natural born status or lack thereof.

Also, on its face, it seems entirely an outrage that the court would rule that an American citizen has no standing in court to even ask that the President present evidence that he has in fact fulfilled the requirements of the constitution to be eligible to the office of President.

Prima facie or on its face is a fine place to start, however, it is not always the way reality actually is. Things are not always the way they seem to be and lies that may appear true need to be rebutted.

The fact is that this matter will not be resolved in the manner it is being brought to the federal courts. Individual Plaintiffs will continue to rightfully be denied standing. If a judge does mistakenly allow an individual plaintiff standing it will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted".

Before I can lay out the legal path to be followed if we are to have any success with this case, I must first lay out the reasons why the court's ruling that individuals have no standing is the correct ruling and why the current path of filing lawsuits in federal court is wrong and will not yield the desired outcome.

For simplicity lets say there are two parts to the Constitution, the body and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights sets out the limitations of government concerning the rights of the states and of the people. It actually has no binding upon the people, as it is a restriction upon the federal government concerning its dealings with the states and the people. The Bill of Rights is a protection for rights retained by the people that predates the formation of government.

It is my belief that the federal courts are over used and usurp the sovereignty of the states due to the utilization of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, that is a discussion for another article. There are Fourteenth Amendment violations and Bill of Rights violations against the people that create a damage. When these damages occur, individuals file federal lawsuits. The plaintiff must be a damaged party and must be able to specifically articulate and show evidence of the damage to have any expectation of success.

For instance, I cannot sue the government simply because I witnessed them violate their constitutional obligations that resulted in damaging you. Only the damaged party has a claim and as disturbing as it may be to witness such a violation I could not legally articulate and show evidence of an actual damage to me, therefore I would have no standing and no claim. Likewise I cannot sue based on possible future damages, such as, if this happens or that happens I may be put in a position to be damaged. You have no claim until you are actually damaged.

What has been so far described concerns constitutional violations of rights in reference to a damaged party which is usually found within the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment. It should be obvious that the lawsuits concerning president Obama's constitutional eligibility are not damaged party Bill of Rights or Fourteenth Amendment filings. Therefore, we can dispose of any talk of damaged party complaints and if you are not an actual damaged party you have no standing legally to proceed in this type of case.

There is no damaged party.

Let us presume for a moment that President Obama is not eligible to the office of President. The fact that he is holding the office as an other than natural born citizen does not in itself damage anyone. Even if President Obama made a heinous decision against the interests of the United States it could never be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the decision was caused because of the place he was born. Perhaps the people who raised him, where he went to school, the groups he joined, or the books he read could be shown to have influenced his decisions, however, there are no constitutional eligibility requirements concerning who raises you, where you go to school, etc.

As stated before, there is a constitutional eligibility requirement of being a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to the office of President that is found in Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5. The Constitution as a whole, and the body specifically, is a contract, and because it is between more than two parties it is referred to as a compact, however these words are interchangeable. Since we have disposed of any damaged party concerning the issue we are left with what amounts to a failure to perform contract violation.

In a contract, only a party to the contract can complain of a violation of the terms of the contract. For instance, Bill and Bob have a contract, I cannot successfully proceed in a lawsuit against Bill for violating the terms of his contract with Bob even though I witnessed it and can prove Bill is guilty. I am not a party to the contract and therefore have no standing to complain.

The constitution is not a contract between people. It is a contract between the several sovereign states whose agreement to compact created the United States of America. Therefore, as ruled by the courts, if you are not a party to the contract, which no individual is, as the states are the parties, you have no standing to complain. The people created states and the states created "The United States by virtue of the compact called The Constitution of the United States of America. Individuals do not have standing to proceed with court actions concerning contract violations that they are not a party to or constitutional violations that they are not specifically damaged by.

The only way to proceed in court concerning this matter is to do it though one of the several states. I believe that the only way is to convince or compel a State Attorney General to file suit in the United States Supreme Court in original jurisdiction and proceed with a case that complains, as a party to the compact, that a specific provision of the agreement is not being performed and to demand performance. I am not sure what the proper vehicle would be for a state to use, Writ of Mandamus, Quo Warranto or something else. I'm not certain that anyone knows for sure as this situation has never happened before.

We need to focus on the nineteen states that have a Republican Attorney General. We need to provide them with the research that has been done that raises the serious questions concerning the current sitting president's constitutional eligibility. We need to provide them a list of the documents to be demanded to evidence eligibility.

This is yet another example that the solutions to this nation's problems do not lie in Washington D.C. but in the several states of the union. The federal government is out of control and the three branches have become one beast exercising unchecked and unbalanced power against the states and the people.

Is it a surprise that D.C. has ignored a constitutional eligibility requirement for the office of President? Ask yourself, who is in charge of this? How much was invested in getting this man in the white house? Who did a background check of his eligibility? The answer is a hundred million dollars and no one. Obama sits in the White House for the same reason poison sits in your medicine cabinet and has been vetted the same way pharmaceutical drugs are vetted by the FDA. They take the pharmaceutical internal studies at face value. In other words, they take their word for it, until enough people start dying.

I am not proposing in this article that the United States Supreme Court has any authority to remove a sitting president. What I am proposing is that the U.S. Supreme Court does have the obligation to enforce the production of documents in a suit properly brought before it where documents are germane to the case and are demanded by a proper party with standing. If it is evidenced by those documents that the sitting president is not eligible to the office then that evidence needs to be presented by a representative of a state to the full Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.

In the unfortunate event that Congress refuses to act on the evidence, then it needs to be presented to the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon by the complaining state and to be demanded that they fulfill their oath and honor of office and remove the usurper.

If all that fails, the people need to enforce their rights as found in the Oregon State Constitution, Article I, Section 1: "We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.–"

For those of you who are saying, "but I don't live in Oregon," under the "equal footing" doctrine and the "equal protection of the law" clause, if the people in the state of Oregon have this right all the people in every state also have this right. Claim the right and do not take no for an answer. Let's get busy.

Francis "Frank" Steffan is the founder, owner, and operator of American Voice Radio Network, also known as AVR, which is an alternative talk radio network with a diverse variety of interesting programs.

Frank Steffan is also the host of a popular, long-running radio talk show called "The Frank Report." This is a twice daily, one hour long call-in show which airs afternoons and evenings weekdays on American Voice Radio Network, in which Frank addresses current event topics from a hard-hitting and methodical point of view. To learn more about American Voice Radio Network and The Frank Report, visit AVR's web site at: www.AmericanVoiceRadio.com

E-mail: AmericanVoiceRadio@yahoo.com


Russ Baker, the award-winning journalist and author of Family of Secrets... the Bush dynasty! Family of Secrets.com


Beware !
Below from John Tate

Dear Friend of Liberty,

With all of the great success you and I have had recently, our movement faces increasing dangers from organizations and individuals who wish to trade on Ron Paul's good name without actually having any connection to or endorsement from him.

To help guard against this problem, Dr. Paul has specifically asked me to bring one such situation to your attention. Many of you may have received letters from David James and The Liberty Committee asking for your support by generously using Ron Paul's name.

Dr. Paul wanted me to let you know neither David James nor The Liberty Committee have any affiliation or association with Ron Paul, Campaign for Liberty, Liberty PAC, or The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE).

In less than a year since our founding, it has been incredible to watch Campaign for Liberty grow to include over 150,000 members who are taking action all across the country to reclaim our Republic.

On behalf of Dr. Paul, I want to thank you for your devotion to freedom and your support for Campaign for Liberty.

Together, we will Restore our Liberties.

In Liberty,

John Tate President Campaign for Liberty


So much for a Second Amendment victory it didn't last long (Only the criminals and slave enforcement are allowed to defend themselves)

Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court Link

A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.

The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA sued the municipalities in June 2008, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a hand-gun ban in the U.S. capital district encompassing Washington.

“We clearly disagree with the court’s conclusion,” NRA attorney William N. Howard, a partner in Chicago’s Freeborn & Peters LLP, said in a telephone interview. “The next step will be an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

“We recognize that this may not be the end of this litigation,” Jenny Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city of Chicago’s law department said, acknowledging the likelihood the NRA would seek further review. “We’re certainly prepared for that if this happens. We’re prepared to aggressively defend our ordinance.”

Second Amendment

Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads in its entirety: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In Heller, the high court struck down Washington’s 32-year- old gun law, which barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents had challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

“Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” Easterbrook wrote, “while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state.”

Chicago’s law took effect in 1982, Hoyle said. While it allows ownership of long guns such as rifles, they must be registered annually with the city’s police department. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are not permitted.

Some exemptions apply to members of the military and law enforcement agencies.

Following Precedent

Chicago U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur on Dec. 4 rejected the NRA’s request that he apply the Heller ruling to the Chicago and Oak Park laws, stating he was bound to follow a 1982 appeals court ruling upholding a ban by the Illinois village of Morton Grove.

That decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the same body that issued today’s opinion. The 15 judges of the Seventh Circuit hear appeals from the federal courts of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Easterbrook, joined by Circuit Court Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, said they, too, were bound to follow the precedent of a higher court, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling on the Second Amendment not applying to states.

An appellate court departure from high court precedent “undermines the uniformity of national law,” Easterbrook wrote.

The judges rendered their ruling one week after hearing arguments.

Applicable Law

A San Francisco-based federal appeals court, with jurisdiction over cases from California, Oregon, Washington and six other Western U.S. states, in April ruled the Second Amendment can be read as applicable to states and counties.

Still, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King allowed to stand an Alameda County, California regulation that outlaws gun possession on county property.

Howard, the NRA’s lawyer, cited the Nordyke ruling as one of the reasons for his client’s challenge to the Chicago court outcome.

“This thing is headed for the Supreme Court,” University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor Richard Epstein said in a phone interview.

“This is a question where you cannot run a split administration and there’s no way the circuits can resolve this amongst themselves,” he said.

The 7th Circuit case is National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago, 08-4241, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago). The 9th Circuit case is Nordyke v. King, 07-15763, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).

Click Here To Comment