I post extensive comments on diverse sites, both left and right of center, concentrating on trying to instruct how legal means can be implemented to establish BO is not a NBC and force his removal from the Office of the President. Especially when someone posting on another site is motivated to pursue a legal strategy I consider is infirm at the outset, I try to point out, why this will not work. Sometimes, I feel like I am talking to the wall. I decided to begin posting some of these comments on this blog. The following exchange exemplifies why despite my best advice, getting BO out of there has proven to be more difficult that I imagined; and perhaps illustrates why it was possible for him to get in there, in the first place.
• truthbetold11 // February 14, 2009 at 12:18 pm
George Bush did leave us a parting gift, the exe order for investigating people in public trust on jan16th, Well slick obama on jan 21 first day in office, writes a retract order bascially to hide presidental records based on national security. Wow! I thought the economy was the main reason people wanted change, GW saw this fraud for who he was and wants us americans to bring cases against him, lawyers who read this should step up to plate and help out. Google GW orders on jan 16th. hope its not to late
• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 12:47 pm
truthbetold11, check out Dr. Orly Taitz’s site she is in the middle of a suit,right now, over the executive order you’re talking about. DEFENDOURFREEDOMS.US
• jbjd // February 14, 2009 at 12:58 pm
truthbetold11 and others, here is the link to President Bush’s EO:
Let me call your attention to some lines from that order:
“When agencies determine the fitness of individuals to perform work as employees in the excepted service or as contractor employees, prior favorable fitness or suitability determinations should be granted reciprocal recognition, to the extent practicable.”
“This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.”
“Effective Date and Applicability. This order is effective upon issuance and is applicable to individuals newly appointed to excepted service positions or hired as contractor employees beginning 90 days from the effective date of this order.”
George W. Bush
The White House,
January 16, 2009.
In sum, this EO does not apply to anyone other than federal agency excepted or contractor employees; it does not take effect until 90 days after January 16; and, most importantly, it does not create any right that can be sued for in law or equity.
People, use your heads. Do your own research. (The Executive Order I linked is less than one page.) There are a million legal well-thought-out ways to expose BO is not a NBC, through the legislative and judicial branches of government. However, filing frivolous lawsuits only obscures the legitimacy of our campaign to expose BO is not a NBC; and invites monetary sanctions for clogging up the courts.
• jbjd // February 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm
bob strauss, on Saturday, January 17, before I read the EO President Bush issued the day before, Orly contacted me, asking whether I knew anything about this EO. I said I had heard about it but had not read it. So, she summarized the EO and proposed she would initiate a legal action to use that EO to investigate BO. She indicated she would spend the next few days working on this. I asked when she intended to serve BO. ‘First thing on Wednesday.’ I told her not to bother. ‘BO will revoke EO’s right after the inauguration. If you cannot file the action before he revokes, you have no legal basis for filing. But you can always serve him after the case is filed.’ She protested. ‘But Monday is a holiday and Tuesday the courts are closed for the inauguration!’ I told her to file where the courts are open. Well, she took my advice. Unfortunately, having not read the EO, I was unable to advise her, this EO has nothing to do with vetting BO; and does not confer a right to enforce, anyway. Just as is stated in the EO, this only affects personnel management, and nothing more.
• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 1:24 pm
jbjd, I will re-read the executive order. I thought it included persons in public trust.
• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 2:13 pm
jbjd, check out section 5 of order. This would include Barry, and others, in the Executive branch of government. I see at the end where the info is intended for the use by Office of Personnel Management. Let’s see what they have on these individuals, such as Barry Soetoro.
• jbjd // February 14, 2009 at 2:43 pm
No, bob strauss, you are mistaken. The section of the EO you cite, refers to people in “positions of public trust.” I understand you might think this would include the President but, common sense aside, you must interpret EO’s according to what they mean. “Positions of public trust” is a term of art. To find out which positions this includes, one has to look to the definitions section at the beginning of this EO. That the term “Position of Public Trust” appears there is your first hint this is a term of art. That is, it means something specific as opposed to, what common sense might interpret this to mean. Here, “positions of public trust” is said to have “the meaning provided in 5 CFR Part 731.” This requires going to the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 5 of the CFR deals with “Administrative Personnel.” (Title 3 deals with “The President.”) Here is the link to Part 731.101 of Title 5, which explains the purpose of Part 731, the section of the CFR referred to in the EO.
In other words, for the last few weeks, Orly has been pursuing a legal strategy aimed at vetting BO, that has no basis grounded in the law.
• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 2:51 pm
jbjd, what will it take to prevail over this
• Fernley Girl // February 14, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Would the EO “public trust” apply to people like Rahm Emmanuel & other o appointees?
• jbjd // February 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Fernley Girl, I cannot answer your question about whether Chief of Staff is covered by this EO without first doing the research. Perhaps you c0uld begin the research by looking up the position of Chief of Staff.
• Fernley Girl // February 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Will do later tonight, for now it’s out to the backyard to get my garden ready!
• JeffM // February 14, 2009 at 9:02 pm
I have found no reference to exclusions to any employee for any item in the EO as cited in Title 5 of U.S. Code. Could you point me in the right direction?
• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 10:23 pm
JeffM, are you saying Obama should be included in the persons of public trust in this EO?