Snopes, Obama, Kagan

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)
Translate this Page!

8 September A.D. 2014

This is the second one of these types of re-igniting the email circulation of this "birther" position information this author has received in about a week's time. It is this author's goal to cause the cessation of this "discussion" thread. The method of accomplishing that goal is competent, efficient, credible information and perspective. A word (or perhaps, one more word) to the wise should be sufficient. What comes into the Inbox, there's not much control over. What we recirculate, we have a lot more control over. (Where the email address book is hacked, then, there's not much control. Aside from that, it's a very conscious activity.)

The obama-nation's "investment" of right at a million dollars in legal fees to keep from public view certain allegedly "public" documents is good information to have if one intends to participate politically, e.g., by "voting." Thus, on the one hand, it should be obvious that there's at least political smoke there, if not a political fire, or why would that cover-up program exist? Everything was "transparent" in this one, huh?!

Of course, and on the other hand, there is no political solution, for there is no political problem. (There are a very limited number of exceptions, the existence of which solidly prove the general rule.) The problems are commercial; hence, so are the solutions. Thus, the mere perpetuation of this "eligibility" issue continues to promote the myth that the present "governmental" system, at the national level, was created by, and is, therefore, controlled by, the language and concepts popularly referred to as the "constitution." It should be more than obvious by this stage that the national system of "government" exits in spite of, and to spite, the language and concepts referred to as the "constitution." Aside from structural and procedural Due Process, there are precious few additional similarities. A "constitutional" system would be quite limited, starting with and including the authorized medium of exchange. This present "federal" system is haughtily braggadocios about its unlimited nature, especially regarding its authorized medium of exchange. Successful self-government can't happen where the people are not self-limited. Leadership is always a reflection, a clear identifier, of the community being led.

Key to this particular note is the perpetuation of this non-sense about Kagan, the Court, the obama-nation, and the "birther" cases. The "birther" cases are, of course, the ones in which the obama-nation's eligibility to hold the "office of president" in the "federal government" has been challenged on Art. II grounds. This author is not aware of even one legal challenge that has done anything except ruin the party (and counsel) advocating in-eligibility. There's a reason for that. Legally speaking, the location of the obama-nation's birth is 100% irrelevant.

Thus, while it's screamin' mimi obvious that there's a cover-up as to the reality that the obama-nation is a Kenyan (i.e., a Brit) (actually, it comes with credible support that Kenya was so named about two years after the obama-nation's stated date of birth), it's even more thunderously obvious that it just flat out makes not one stinkin' bit of difference WHERE he was born, given our present legal reality.

What tends always to happen with "patriot"-type thrusts with well-meaning but ill-based, ill-formed "constitution-based" legal positions (yes, this author contributed, once, to that problem; the learning from that once was sufficient; he didn't make a habit or practice of it), is that where the main objective is clobbered, the same ideas are applied in collateral areas and pressed through side, and even back, doors. The "birthers' " point, very, very sound factually, very sound factually, has been made for quite some time now, by all kinds of people (who should have known better), with no legal headway anywhere in sight. (As should speak for itself, if the applicable law were to find those ungainsayable facts relevant, the legal results would be quite different. But, if those facts were relevant in today's legal environment, then this author gives sufficient credit to the DNC's legal counsel to say that this issue would never have come up in the first place.) We'll see what develops from the angle that what was disclosed as a "birth certificate" was, in fact, a genuine document or something concocted with the intent of dispelling the matter. Solid positions exist that it was just another "photo-shopped" document, and, that door's being kicked wide open by the obama-nation and his staff assigned to "handling" that matter, it's very clear it did nothing but add fuel to that fire. So, that effort boomeranged, in at least both of those ways, and while this author expects nothing else to develop from that, it's the sort of "information" that is relevant to those still stuck in the myth of a "constitution" and in the dream world that a "vote" actually matters, these days. (The pre-programmed Diebold voting machines don't care what the individual participants in that exercise of futility think, say, or mark. What was all the dispute over the "hanging chad" designed to do? Justify the use of pre-programmed Diebold "voting" machines.)

What is obvious that still fails to prevail within the "community" that should have long since stopped circulating this outrageous "buying of the Court" perspective within the emotional (and mindless, legally speaking) "birther" position context is that the named Solicitor General, in this case Kagan, has his/her name on EVERY case before the Supreme Court in which USOA, or any of its officers, agents, agencies, or employees, is a party.

Let's see. Kagan had that office from 19 March 2009 to 17 May 2010. <>; <>. During that time, according to the very same Supreme Court Records relied upon in the note below, as well as additional credible sources, Kagan's name appears as the attorney in charge, i.e., the first named counsel of Record, some 5,000 times (5,033 by one rather detailed count).

So, whatever is or isn't talked about at is hardly "the" source of information that matters for something like this. "The" starting place for a matter of this sort is with the job description of the Office of Solicitor General. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to voice in on the matter for the vast majority of people interested in this study to come to a reasonable conclusion and understanding that it's the JOB of the Solicitor General to represent USOA, and any and all of its officers, agents, agencies, employees, and all other people and entities acting in the name of USOA, in all litigation matters before the Supreme Court of the United States. It's just that much more of a no-brainer to find the Solicitor General's name on any and all papers filed in all such cases pending before the Supreme Court. It's her JOB to be the attorney in charge of all such litigation.

We don't have to like or approve or support the life-style she's been associated with. We don't have to like or approve or support her political views. We can take an hour and list all the things she thinks, says, does, and refrains from thinking, saying, and doing, and fully satisfy ourselves that we don't have to like, approve, or support any of it. Now, to focus on that which is directly relevant to this issue, it's OUTRAGEOUS to limit the scope of her JOB as Solicitor General to that extremely narrow part of it that involves "birther" cases that would never have existed in the first place but for a rash of well-meaning but unthought, flagrantly incorrect legal "analysis." This takes the lesson learned from story of the five blind men describing the elephant way over the top. Conclusions about the obama-nation, Kagan, the Court, and the applicable law, are based on massively un-thought review of what, 10 cases? And, the "birthers" think that such blatant self-indulgent myopia benefits their position and cause?

What we have, then, is this. That officer within USOA did her JOB, in cases where the petitioners were well-meaning, but legally, even facially, incompetent, and yet now there's some sort of alleged skulduggery in/with the Supreme Court because that's where we now find Kagan. Wow! It's super easy to argue to a conclusion that is first presumed true. The reality is that the Supreme Court were diplomatically handling all kinds of "stuff" regarding the "birther" cases long before Kagan showed up. The law hasn't changed from the time she assumed the JOB of Solicitor General to the time she accepted the JOB of Supreme Court Justice. The law in this area won't be any different between the time those cases first started showing up in Washington and the time Kagan may retire, or between now and the time God remanifests in His Resurrection Body, i.e., between now and Kingdom come.

Because the initial Art. II thrust was repelled, in the way that Superman repels BBs, that "effort" has now shifted over into collateral matters. At the base, the presumption is still wrong that there's relevance in the facts of the location of the obama-nation's birth. One more time. There's no question that the facts are true that the obama-nation was born in the place presently called Kenya. No question at all, whatsoever, about the validity of those true and correct facts. The problem is that they are irrelevant. What determines relevancy? The applicable law. Thus, despite the manifest irrelevancy, that position is now snowballing by collecting up in the "birther" concept all kinds of additional matters as it continues to move forward; well, move. It's hardly moving "forward." In this snowball analogy, this author has turned the hockey rink into a huge hot plate with the intent of melting that snowball.

We'll know when the reality has soaked in when this nonsense with snopes, the obama-nation, Kagan, and the Court has finally stopped circulating, at least among those interested in our present legal reality.

There are at least two ways to contribute to the advancement of our present legal reality. The P&L reports show positive inclinations by both of two means. Obviously, the P&L goes up when there are more profits. By analogy, one way to advance the understanding of our present legal reality is to do what this author does: state affirmatively the reality. Here, as is the case in many of his notes, the reality is that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional government." That's the approach likened to the increase in profits. Those not quite comfortable yet with applying the affirmative assertion approach have an alternative. The P&L also goes up when expenses are reduced. In this side of this analogy, then, it advances the legal reality simply to stop circulating the non-sense. One doesn't have to assert the affirmation position to make a very substantial contribution. One makes a huge contribution by just not recirculating non-sense. Where the non-sense is simply no longer advanced, over and over and over, then the non-sense takes a quiet exit out of stage left.

In other words, we're applying some basic free market economic principles to this "market" of information. What we're applying is the basic "supply and demand" concept. Where our collective demand for non-sense stops, then so will the supply. Where we keep "buying" the nonsense that others are "selling," then the supply will remain. Once we stop "buying" it, the supply will dwindle.

Economically, everything about the "birthers' " efforts has proved to be a 100% waste in time, "money," and energy. Everything about it has been flushed down the drain. IF there's a value that derives from this enormous investment, THEN let it be the comprehension of our present legal reality. If that learning takes place, then, while it's an extremely expensive lesson, at least it will be one learned. To learn it is then to be able to apply it, and time, "money," and energy may be more economically invested in future endeavors.

Speaking of economics and investing sound thinking and analysis to future endeavors, why is the obama-nation of focus, at all, anyway? Or Kagan? How many of these "birthers" have been compelled by the obama-nation into any of their existing "gotcha agreements," by which they agree, commercially, to be regulated by the "federal government?" Similarly, how many of these "birthers" have been compelled by Kagan into any of their existing "gotcha agreements?" It matters not who's in what office, because all that really matters is what we sign. To understand "federal" is to understand this reality. As was circulated what may be a few months ago, now, the idea expressed was that author's hope that this nation would be saved not "through" politics but "from" politics. Politics is merely the bread and circus distraction played out for the masses, and, given our present legal reality, in which the political voice of the people is almost never heard, for it's almost always irrelevant, those committed to political activities are truly wasting their very limited resources of time, "money," and energy. If there's a saving grace in all of that, it's the remote possibility that the active "party" participants recognize that such activities are 99% just that: parties, as in enjoyable social functions. Those who genuinely expect more than that are truly being played.

To those who have already stopped recirculating this "constitutional" "stuff," especially the original "birther" position and now also these collateral "birther" positions, Congratulations! And Thank You!

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe : [email protected]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Snopes, Obama, Kagan
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:08:54 -0700

A little illegal end-run around the Constitution and the Laws of the United States of America...
$950,000 worth of 'legal sophistry' to keep Barry Soetoro-Obama's records hidden from public view...
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2021 9:34 AM
Subject: Snopes, Obama, Kagan

Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Courts' Kagan

We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya' don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya'? We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros!

In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan who Obama appointed and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets so I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there.

So here is what I wrote to Snopes: "Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking. Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it."

That being said, I'll bet you didn't know this. Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly. Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on. Once again the US Senate sold us out! Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket: You can look up some of these hearings and guess what? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama! Check out these examples:

If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete. However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S.Constitution; by all means, PASS it ON! There truly is tyranny afoot.

NOTICE: Harmon L. Taylor and other presented entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
AntiShyster Magazine Attention Signing the Constitution Away
Aware Belligerent Claimant
Bonds Citizenship / nationality related items
Education Graphics
Health related Admiralty related
Howard Griswold
Jerry Kirk Jurisdiction
Law related items Lee Brobst
Lewis Mohr Luis Ewing
Money Reading Material
Reading Room Stuff
Tax matters Travel related
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it is fast, free and secure!

Freedom-School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of used throughout. "You" is in reference to the user / visitor.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and
defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as
there is no charge for things presented. site relies on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.

The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct;
use the service in any way, or manner, that harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented;
damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site)
or interfere with anyone´s use and enjoyment of the website.

All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as
we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the site or material contained within.

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable information about you when you visit the site, we do collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve our Web site design and our online presence.
Visitors to this site who have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like: the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using; your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed; the time of your visit to the site; the pages you visit on the site; the amount of time you spend on each page of the site and referring site information. In addition to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared with Google. For more information on Google´s privacy policies, visit:
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions. The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites. Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis." site, the DVD issue, microSDHC card issue, or work computers´ DMCA Policy

the site, the DVD issue, microSDHC card issue, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.

If your copyrighted material has been posted on the site, the DVD issue, microSDHC card issue, or work computers, in other than fair use capacity or if links to your copyrighted material are returned through our search engine and you want the material removed, you must provide a written communication that details the information listed in the following section. Please be aware that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys´ fees) if you misrepresent information listed on the site that is allegedly infringing on your alleged copyrights. We suggest that you may want to first contact competent legal assistance on this matter.

The following elements must be included in your copyright infringement claim:

* Provide evidence of the authorized person to act on behalf of the fully disclosed alleged owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Please notice that we generally do not deal with third parties.
* Provide sufficient contact information so that we may contact you. You must also include a valid email address.
* You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed and including at least one search term under which the material appears in search results.
* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
* Must be signed by the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly being infringed. (Proper ratification of commencement.)

Send the infringement notice via email to the postmaster at

Please allow 1-3 business days for an email response. Note that emailing your complaint to other parties such as our Internet Service Provider (ISP) or server host(s) will not expedite your request and may result in a delayed response due the complaint not being properly being filed.

Presentation Copyright© 2003, 2014
All Rights Reserved


Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional