Scroll down for current posts and articles.
**********************************************

Be patient please. The blog takes a few minutes to load.
Your computer is not locked up. We don't have the speed of a website. Thanks for your indulgence.

************************************************

NAVIGATING THIS BLOG


Posts (dated articles with a feature that allows for comments from readers) are below the front page.

Same with links to other websites, videos and blog archives. They are on the right side of the blog where opposite posts in a narrow column.

SCROLL DOWN if you want to research or get sources. Use the "labels" feature and simply click on the topic or person that interests you. An idiosyncracy of this format is that whenever you click on a label or older post, you will again see the front page. Nothing we can do about that.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR BLOG:
oteroresidentsforum@gmail.com



________________________________________

CONSTITUTIONAL COUNTY ORDINANCE WEBSITE

Website advocating for involvement in your county regulation process and suggestions for county ordinances responding to federal expansion of jurisdiction and authority and global governance.


http://sites.google.com/site/constitutionalcountyordinance/

**********************************************************


* * * * * * *
US Capitol switchboard
800-828-0498 or 202-224-3121

* * * * * * *





*******************************************************
ORF is now monetized. This means you will see ads on the blog. By clicking on the ads, you help generate revenue for ORF. What is ORF going to do with revenue generated from this blog? We want to buy a blender. A really nice blender with multiple speeds. We also would like to buy a lava lamp. In addition to the items mentioned aforely, we would also like to buy a stuffed Jack-a-lope head. Nothing extravagant.

Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

The Oath of the President of the United States


US Constitution, Article II, Section 1


Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."


The case could be made that Obama has violated the oath of the office of the Presidency of the United States in not closing the borders at the threat of a global pandemic of the Mexican flu, the violations of the U.S. Constitution in the CIFTA, and his refusal to clarify the circumstances of his birth. Think about it.


Link to the White House by Clicking on Photo

Link to the White House by Clicking on Photo
WHEN OBAMA TALKS ABOUT GUN CONTROL HE REALLY MEANS GUN CONFISCATION

KALH COMMUNITY RADIO

KALH COMMUNITY RADIO
Click on KALH logo for website and to listen to live stream

MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY - COLLATERAL DAMAGE IDENTIFICATION

WARNING: GRAPHIC PICTURES MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR WOLF LOVERS & SMALL CHILDREN

Catron County Wolf Incident Investigator, Jess Carey, provide ORF with this document. This is what the ranchers in western New Mexico are living with.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12e740df9705f324&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3Db2e1154c85%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12e740df9705f324%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQTV_dgqwDweaJO_z9FKGvH0SJ6pw&pli=1


CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF MILITARY OR ANY OTHER HOSTILE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES (A TREATY SIGNED IN THE
UN).
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/enmod/text/environ2.htm

NEW MEXICO WOLF RE-INTRODUCTION

Links to past ORF information on the Mexican Gray Wolf re-introduction program. Some of the links to newspaper articles no longer work.


http://oteroresidentsforum.blogspot.com/search/label/MEXICAN%20GRAY%20WOLF

WOLF CROSSING WEBSITE

http://wolfcrossing.org/








***********************************

ORF NEWS BLIMP

ORF NEWS BLIMP
They are watching. We're watching them watcing us watching you.

OTERO RESIDENTS FORUM COLLECTION OF PARODY CARTOONS

http://oteroresidentforumparodyblog.blogspot.com/

We've complied the best of the ORF cartoons all in one location.

Natural Climate Change - Real Science, Verifiable

Natural Climate Change - Real Science, Verifiable
Dr. Eric Karlstrom's excellent website on climate change, it's natural. The agenda is truth and the vindication of scientific method.

Title 17 U.S.C section 107

*NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Posts and Comments from Readers

Please include yourself in the discussion. Post a comment.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: SECTION ONE

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

TOPEKA, KS BANS OPEN CARRY IN PUBLIC PLACES

Here is an open carry/firearms ban from Topeka,KS similar to the recent illegal and unconstitutional open carry/firearms ban enacted by the Mayor of Ruidoso. Click on the title to read the information.

CORAM NOBIS: WRIT OF ERROR

A writ of coram nobis is an order by an appeals court to a lower court to consider facts not on the trial record which might have changed the outcome of the lower court case if known at the time of trial. Coram nobis is a Latin term meaning the "error before us."

In deciding whether to grant the writ, courts have used a three-part test: a petitioner must

1. explain her failure to seek relief from judgment earlier,

2. demonstrate continuing collateral consequences from the conviction, and

3. prove that the error is fundamental to the validity of the judgment.

An example of when it might be used includes prosecutorial misconduct hiding exculpatory evidence from the defendant. A writ of coram nobis is issued once the petitioner is no longer in custody. Its legal effect is to vacate the underlying conviction. A petition for a writ of error coram nobis is brought to the court that convicted and sentenced the defendant.

Coram nobis is limited to cases in which a "fundamental error" or "manifest injustice" has been committed. A high burden of proof is required. It cannot be used to reopen and reargue points of law the courts have decided, but only to raise errors of fact that were knowingly withheld by the prosecutor from judges and defendants. A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, known more for its denial than its approval. It is distinguished from a writ of error coram vobis which brings before the court certain mistakes of fact not put in issue or passed upon,such as the death of a party, coverture, infancy, error in process, or mistake of the clerk.

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly abolished the use of coram nobis in civil cases in the United States, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b), the issue of the writ's availability to correct fundamental errors in criminal cases remained uncertain for many years. In United States v. Morgan, the Supreme Court resolved this question, holding that coram nobis was still available in federal court for criminal cases. See 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954).

PRESSER v. ILLINOIS

Case from 1886. In the Supreme Courts decision included interpretations of a citizens or a militas right to bear arms and how a state violates the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

Columbia v. Heller

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | Annotations

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.


Annotations

Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated

Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the

right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.

In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.


Footnotes

554 U.S. ____ (2008).

A sampling of the diverse literature in which the same historical, linguistic, and case law background is the basis for strikingly different conclusions includes: Staff of Subcomm. on the Constitution, Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Congress, 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Comm. Print 1982); Don B. Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment (1984); Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment (Robert J. Cottrol, ed. 1993); Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984); Symposium, Gun Control, 49 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1 (1986); Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989).

SeePresser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886); see also Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1897).

307 U.S. 174 (1939).

No. 08-1521 (June 28, 2010).