All I can say is the guy is a real coward with the moderation.

All I can say is the guy is a real coward with the moderation.

Phil Marlowe
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Back in my college days, I used to bring donuts to the Web Dubola Club meetings. Like everyone mentioned here, I grew out of that phase.

Spotlight: Judge Jerome B. Simandle
September 28, 2009 by John Charlton

A PRINCETON MAN WHO ROSE RAPIDLY IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, WAS AN EARLY NAIDER’S RAIDER
by John Charlton

(Sept. 28, 2009) — Judge Jerome B. Simandle’s court is currently hearing the case of Kerchner et al. vs. Obama et al. The Post & Email will from time to time publish Spotlight reports on public officials in the news, to highlight their background and personal history, available from public sources and those who have known them in life.

Jerome B. Simandle was born in Binghamton, NY, in 1949. He graduated in 1967 from Binghamton North High School.

Simandle at Princeton
Simandle was one of the early “Nader’s raiders.”

In the summer of 1970, while still an undergraduate at Princeton, he co-authored a paper for the Center of Responsive Study of Law, with Reuben Robertson, demanding the FAA release “Systemworthiness Analysis Program” reports (SWAP reports).

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/spotlight-judge-jerome-b-simandle/

Spotlight: Judge Clay D. Land
September 28, 2009 by John Charlton

LIFE-LONG REPUBLICAN, PROMOTED FROM STATE LEGISLATURE TO FEDERAL BENCH
by John Charlton
excerpt
Financial Disclosures have been problematic
Judicial Watch publishes the public financial disclosures of Judge Land. A number of them have had to be amended due to an apparent failure of Judge Land to keep track of his numerous investments.

In 2003, Judge Land had to follow a follow up report for failure to report various investments in Mirant Common Stock and Worldcom Common Stock.

His reports filed for the years 2003-7 list investments in many of the largest companies backing Barack Obama, such as Microsoft and Comcast.

In his 2004 report he also lists and investment with Time Warner, Inc..

In this 2005 report he lists salary from Buchanan & Land, LLP.

In his 2006 report he adds a follow up report, once again, for failure to disclose some 25 investments in Banks and Mutual Funds; in addition to his 62 other investments in a slew of companies. He also reported income once again from his law firm.

In this 2007 report he claims income as a self-employed lawyer, and that from his law firm Buchanan & Land LLP, along with 56 other investments in Mutual Funds, Banks and other industries and services.

It is difficult to understand how, with so many varied investments, Judge Land has managed to avoid conflicts of interest in the numerous cases he has heard. Moreover, seeing that many of these companies would be impacted if the laws signed by Barack Hussein Obama’s were declared null and void, on account of his lack of eligibility for office, it also seems reasonable to ask why Judge Land did not recuse himself in the case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald.

Yes, Virginia & South Carolina: You can save the Republic!
September 29, 2009 by John Charlton

AN INTERVIEW WITH THE TONA COMMITTEE, ON THE AMAZING STORY OF THE ORIGINAL 13TH AMENDMENT
by John Charlton

There is nothing more fascinating that the story of the Original 13th Amendment, how it was ratified, accepted by the Federal Government, and subsequently omitted, forgotten and denied by a national political elite which pandered for handouts from foreigners. The original Amendment imposed the penalty of the loss of U.S. citizenship on anyone who took money or favors from foreign governments.

To understand the history behind the original 13th Amendment, I decided to seek an interview with one or more of the members of the TONA Committee who have spent nearly a generation investigating and researching its history.

The TONA Committee worked together to answer the questions I submitted, but for the sake of format, I have layed out the interview, as if I spoke with Mrs. Suzanne Nevling, one of the committee members.

Okay legal eagles, what is this BS?

"The assertion that the amendment was validly ratified has never been upheld by any court in the United States. In the few instances in which courts have been confronted with the assertion that the amendment was indeed ratified, judges have brushed those claims aside. In Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005), a tax protester raised the amendment as one of his defenses to a charge of tax evasion. The court replied that it would "correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution":



In another case, Sibley v. Culliver, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1283 (M.D. Ala. 2003), aff'd 377 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2004), a federal court in Alabama found that the defendant's invocation of the amendment worked to his detriment. The court took note of documents produced by the defendant, a convicted murderer who submitted documents in support of his appeal claiming that the amendment rendered his conviction invalid:



The Sibley court dismissed the appeal, concluding in part that the defendant was simply not seeking relief through the courts.

Okay legal eagles, what is this BS?

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... -republic/

There is really no amount of BS these folks won't engage in, is there? The ADL has a document about asinine legal arguments and it looks like they're just picking randomly from the list. This myth is addressed in section 9. Apparently, there was also a law review article about it recently: The" Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility by Jol A. Silversmith, 8 Southern Calif. Interdisciplinary Law Jrnl 577 (spring 1999)

"An insufficient number of states ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment ("TONA") to make it part of the Constitution.(17) But, although mostly forgotten in this century, the amendment was more than just a footnote to history in the last century. Well into the second half of the nineteenth century, some textbooks, state compilations of law, and even on one occasion a compilation of law published under the auspices of Congress erroneously included TONA as if ratified.(18) Further, after the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution in 1992, scholars noted that if James Madison's amendment could be ratified after 203 years, there was no immediately obvious reason why TONA was not still viable, if still far distant from becoming part of the Constitution.(19)

But even before the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment gave the other amendments to the Constitution that were submitted to the states but not ratified(20) their fifteen Warhollian minutes of fame, TONA also had received attention from a different--and disturbing--source. In August 1991, an extremist small-press magazine entitled AntiShyster published a series of articles by David Dodge,(21) who claimed to have discovered that TONA in fact had been ratified and later suppressed.(22) Dodge's articles have found a ready audience in many extremist organizations,(23) and have found their way onto the Internet, where they are available from world wide web sites, along with additional commentary and information from TONA proponents.(24) Following Dodge, TONA proponents put forward an assortment of "constitutional nonsense," such as the claim that the amendment would exclude lawyers ("esquires") from public office.(25) Some even use TONA to justify "sentencing" state officials to death or murdering police officers.(26)"

But, although mostly forgotten in this century, the amendment was more than just a footnote to history in the last century. Well into the second half of the nineteenth century, some textbooks, state compilations of law, and even on one occasion a compilation of law published under the auspices of Congress erroneously included TONA as if ratified.

My husband has both a JD and PhD and doesn't use the Esq, but is rather picky (some may even say prickly) about the Dr.

I have a Ph.D. too, and I prefer to be on a first-name basis with pretty much everybody.

From time to time, when someone refers to me as "Mr. Skeptic" and the occasion seems to warrant it, I'll say, "It's Dr. Skeptic -- and call me Maine."

Well, thats because you have people skills!

I have a mere Master's degree. But as a total dago, I prefer to be called "Maestro."

Sadly... everybody just calls me Frank.

I have a mere Master's degree. But as a total dago, I prefer to be called "Maestro."

Hehehe. My daddy used to always use the Esq until the Publishers Clearing House people decided that was his last name and he became Dr. Esq. He worried that when Ed McMahon came to give him his winnings, they would be looking for a Dr. Esq and leave withiyt dropping off that giant check! My husband has both a JD and PhD and doesn't use the Esq, but is rather picky (some may even say prickly) about the Dr.

The discussions of TONA remind me of this (as I am one singleminded bastard): Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. Esquire. A title of nobility?

I personally do not like to use "Esq." and you will never, ever, find it on any paper or pleading I have created. When I send letters to other lawyers I do not include it. I find it to be a silly honorific. Indeed, I eschew Mr. except in direct address. When one of those telephone marketers is talking to me, and I have no choice (e.g., I am ordering something I need), and s/he refers to me as "Stern," I say, "Please address me as Mr. Friegen. I want a business relationship, not a date."

Likewise, although I have a J.D., I also do not use "Dr." as many people do. (Taitz would really like to call herself Dr. Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esquire.") When I was law clerking before I had passed the Bar, my parents would proudly send me mail addressed to "Dr. Sterngard Friegen." (My father is a doctor.) And I had to write them and tell them not to do that again, for if the postman felt chest pains coming on he might knock on my door!

I do believe physicians, veterinarians and dentists deserve "Dr." and I am respectful. Except when they or their nurses try to address me in the form indicating they want a date.

I'm with you Stern, when I started working for lawyers I was completely nonplussed by this "Esquire" nonsense, the other staff used to put it in pleadings etc., I immediately set about removing it. It is especially silly when female attorneys refer to themselves as "Esquire" (no offense to any of the lady lawyers here but it is specifically a term reserved for men), I simply think that Joe/Jane Bloggs, Attorney (or attorney for plaintiff/defendant etc.,) is sufficient, or hows about Joe/Jane Bloggs, J.D. Orly's habit of saying to people "I am a doctor and an Esquire" is even more ridiculous. I liken the American useage of the word similar to Michael Jackson naming his son "Prince" as well as others naming their children "Judge", "Queen" "Princess" "Duke" "Baron" etc., it is silly.