Updated, 1/16, 1/23: Eligibility proceedings are proceeding and new challenges keep coming. I.O. suggests starting here and at The Right Side of Life and their "Eligibility Lawsuits" page, to keep track (it takes a program). Visit this page, if you need to catch up about why.
Monday, 1/12 - The Sureme Court (SCOTUS) is to announce their disposition of their Friday, 1/9 conference over Philip Berg v. Barack Obama. This is purportedly regarding Berg's petition for writ of certiorari, a call for a full SCOTUS review, although that does not seem explicit to this reader, admittedly not an attorney (I.O. finds this docket listing on file, 08-570).
Monday, 1/12 - The SCOTUS disposition of Berg v. Obama: "The motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." You may read by link a report and a commentary about this by blogger, law student, and close follower of this case, Jeff Schreiber. His commentary presents considered opinions, but not the only rational ones. Further scrying and black robe gazing is offered in Schrieber's user commentary, on Phil's Right Side of Life, and numerous other spots. I.O's opinion is, this is an excellent time and matter for considering numerous factors and possibilities without one's marbles rolling into any particular crevice about it.
Along these lines and bumps, feel free to add comments here, to something already offered by a Lawyer from Missouri.
Friday, 1/16 - The Supreme Court is again to consider Berg v. Obama in conference. As docketed this is regarding Berg's petition "for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari" against either the Electoral College vote or the certification of that vote by Congress, both already having occured, now (docket link 08-4340 / docket link 08a505).
Monday, 1/19 - Customary day of SCOTUS announcements of their disposition of cases discussed in conference on Friday, 1/16. Update, 1/16: As reported in: Provocative Speculations about the Supreme Court's Considerations of the Eligibility Challenges:
In "Berg v. Obama: Case Disposition Likely Wednesday," Phil of TRSoL relates that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will not announce a disposition on today's conference about Berg's application for injunction until Wednesday, 1/21, due to the court being closed Monday and Tuesday.Tuesday, 1/20 - Inauguratiion Day
Wednesday, 1/21 - Likely disposition of the Berg application for injunction against the election of Barack Obama (clearly, after the fact). In the humble opinion of I.O., this is likely to be a denial of a moot application; However, since we are in unchartered jurisprudential waters, the high court has an opportunity to speak to the previous day's inauguration, by means of this application. And this is especially relevant to the potential case of a conspiracy of election fraud, since, if that were to eventually, legally be found, the crimes would at this point, be complete. Could the SCOTUS effectively suspend the presidency of Mr. Obama? One supposes it could. See the analyses linked to by this aforementioned I.O. post.
Friday, 1/23 - The SCOTUS is to discuss Lightfoot v. Bowen in conference, referred by Chief Justice Roberts. This case is originally a California case for an injunction against that state's Electoral College vote.
Monday, 1/26 - Customary day of SCOTUS announcements of their disposition of cases discussed in conference on Friday, 1/16 -- and so it goes.
This post may be updated with further items or explications.
Arlen, I.O., Awakening in Twitter
Arlen, I.O., Awakening: Facebook
84 comments:
Well they just announced on the Right Side of Life that Berg's writ of certiorari is denied.
Somebody really wants this phony ineligible candidate to be sworn in.
Lawyer from Missouri's opinion:
I was reading the first couple of pages and one thing written in the amicus brief should show you that the issues are REAL and people should not get discouraged. On page 2 and 3 are the telling paragraphs
1. This Court is not facing a question of the constitutional aspects of standing, but a question pertaining to the prudential considerations only; and
2. The lack of an adequate remedy following the inauguration of Barack Obama, and the potential civil and military crises which could arise therefrom, that could not be readily addressed by the ordinary processes of the law, must be considered in addressing the prudential aspects of standing; and,
3. With respect to the prudential considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Okay, looking at these 3 provisions, the Supreme Court granted the brief and denied the stay because there is a bigger problem. This issue (e.g. granting writ of certiorari in Berg v. Obama) will not only affect Obama, but it will likely impact Biden (Vice President Elect) as well since he was involved and current Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and any other person who is the successor in line to be President because they have knowledge of the fraud and complied with it (e.g. current democratic leadership). The people supporting Obama know the U.S. has a problem and that is why coup de'tat are so effective, but what is critical is that THE MILITARY KNOWS AND ARE ON GUARD NOT TO FOLLOW ANY ORDERS FROM AN INELIGIBLE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
That is why the Supreme Court is being extra cautious here in which they should because there is a possibility of another American civil war. The investigations on all levels are going to impact a whole bunch of people who will need to be removed from serving in a federal capacity. This will likely be an Al Capone feat in bringing this down once all of this goes through.
Ideas to consider, Anon.
BTW... res ipsa loquitur: A Latin term meaning "the thing speaks for itself." Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine or rule of evidence that creates a presumption that a defendant acted negligently simply because a harmful accident occurred. The presumption arises only if (1) the thing that caused the accident was under the defendant's control, (2) the accident could happen only as a result of a careless act and, (3) the plaintiff's behavior did not contribute to the accident. Lawyers often refer to this doctrine as "res ips" or "res ipsa."
This issue is dead.
Obama will be the POTUS, just get over it.
Mr. Obama will lead us in the great Socialist Revolution and overthrow all the selfish individualists. No more self. No more working for just your own benefit. You must toil for your fellow man. You exist by the grace of your fellow man.
"We can do it"..."Yes we can!"
Here's what's happening:
1. Berg's case is going down to the Court of Appeals.
2. Supreme Court has nevertheless accepted the amicus brief that, regardless of Berg, Supreme Court MUST issue a stay until the matter is resolved (either at the Court of Appeals or through one of the other actions now before the Supreme Court or Obama voluntarily withdraws for the peace of the country) because it would be catastrophic damage to USA if Obama were inaugurated and LATER determined inelligible (that is, because all actions by the Federal Government under an inelligible Obama would be void or voidable).
3. Supreme Court currently has a Stay set for Conference on 1/16/09 and can Stay the 1/20/09 Inauguration of Obama to be replaced by the swearing in of Biden under the 20th Amendment (at least to serve as Acting President until the Obama constitutional elligibility is resolved).
4. Alternatively, the Supreme Court can retroactively Stay (after 1/20/09) -- say on 1/23/09 at its scheduled conference on the Lightfoot case -- the Obama Inauguration until the eligibility issue is resolved
Thank you, Arlen, for all you do to enlighten those of us who care.
God bless America!
Arlen,
That the Court granted Anderson's motion to file his amicus brief means very little.
By denying cert to Berg, what the Court did was attach Anderson's brief to Berg's, then dismiss them both together.
The issue of standing is turning into a higher and higher hurdle to clear, and the Lightfoot case simply won't be able to clear it - Dr. Taitz is just not presenting a convincing case.
Two considerations:
1. Of all the cases presented to all the courts involved, seemingly none of these cases has been presented by a lawyer well-versed in Constitutional law. Why?
2. The best chance at invalidating Obama's Election Day victory was last week, as the Electoral Vote was being counted during a joint session of Congress. Quoting from an entry on the yourfellowcitizen blog,
"Under federal law an objection to a state's electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress's counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes."
Victor
I don't think there has been enough on the ground real investigating work done. At the present time in those countries involved in either the possible birth or possible adoption there has been a heightened alert to anyone looking. This is due to the attention given the matter universally for a time. When things die down, and when certain members of the opposition in said countries could be worked with or just given "monetary incentive" perhaps a better chance to obtain evidence will arise. OTOH, there were a lot of stories about what was known about Clinton's activities by officials and all was kept quiet.
Lawyer from Missouri:
I disagree with Victor's post in regards to his view that Taitz is not bringing a convincing case.
Berg case is not the same as Taitz. One she is pleading for a person who was a VP Candidate on the ballot. Berg is a citizen who voted.
Second, she has military officials on her case. The issue of standing is not really what the court is looking at.
By granting the amicus brief of Anderson, there are more considerations here (e.g. civil and military unrest) and there are more players involved who are doing a complete coup de tat of our Constitution and constitutional republic.
Lawyer from Missouri,
Standing is the first hurdle in the case: Dr. Taitz would have to convince the court that Gail Lightfoot, as a Vice Presidential candidate, suffered actual damage.
That's very hard to do, because just as Berg had more than one person to vote for, Lightfoot was one among many candidates for office: Obama's presence on the ballot did not cause Lightfoot actual harm, as a voter who may have had doubts about Obama's qualifications could have voted for someone else.
Whether or not members of the military are also in the case is immaterial - they would also have to demonstrate actual harm to clear the standing hurdle.
Anderson's amicus brief was added as a courtesy, but dismissed as part of Berg.
"Anonymous said...
This issue is dead.
Obama will be the POTUS, just get over it."
Please tell me that your post was misguided satire.
Could anyone actually (seriously) that like that?
Victor,
Where is your backing that any members of the U.S. Armed Forces will not be able to challenge the eligibility of BHO as President?
The whole point of the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 was specifically for the role of the President as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
I have a feeling you and especially Sam Sewell are Obama supporters. Nothing is wrong with that. But, understand this. People thought Al Capone would be able to escape the law because of his connections, but you know what as indicated the the movie, The Untouchables, the Feds were able to put Capone in prison under IRS tax evasion.
When (not if) this port of entry document comes up and shows BHO was born in Kenya and documented by a U.S. agency (or another country's agency) as such, you will see Obama turn into Blagojevich within a heart beat.
Trust, this ain't over. The Supreme Court is waiting for COMPELLING EVIDENCE to expose the fraud that has been perpetuated by a whole lot of people.
Anonymous,
Anyone and everyone is able to challenge the eligibility, in the sense that anyone and everyone can file a suit with a court.
To successfully continue the process, the plaintiff needs to demonstrate "standing" - a legal term defined this way:
"the status of being qualified to assert or enforce legal rights or duties in a judicial forum because one has a sufficient and protectable interest in the outcome of a justiciable controversy and usu. has suffered or is threatened with actual injury" (source - FindLaw)
Berg and others were unable to prove they had standing, because they were unable to demonstrate "actual injury".
The likelihood is that Lightfoot will not be able to prove standing either, and for the same reason.
Will a member of the military be able to do so? That's probably a matter for the US Military Court of Justice to deliberate on, and not the Supreme Court.
Unless and until the hurdle of standing can be cleared, none of the other parts of the case matter.
If (and only if) supporting evidence that's admissible in a court of law can be brought to light, then Barack Obama can be impeached... but that's a pretty big "if."
To Obama supporters, to be impeached, a President must be constitutionally eligible.
Obama is not, will never be, constitutionally eligible under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution because he was not a natural born citizen of the U.S. To be a natural born citizen (as defined in case law and the Senate resolution that Obama passed along with other Senators), you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents (plural, not singular) AND born in the U.S. mainland. Obama is the son of BHO I who was and still remained a Kenyan National to his death. He can't be a natural born citizen for that fact. Also, there is increasing evidence that Obama isn't even a native born citizen of the U.S. (e.g. born in the U.S. Mainland). So you are thinking an ILLEGAL ALIEN (kenyan born and still an Indonesian citizen) is legitimate.
Have you ever heard of fraud in the inducement? Well that is what is occurring. When Fraud in the inducement occurs, the original transaction (e.g. primaries, election results) are VOID.
It is not a coincidence that BHO, McCain and Calero were not eligible to be POTUS under the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
So, if enough of WE THE PEOPLE get tired of this foolishness we will take BHO out, his cohorts in the DNC party and other person who is supporting this Benedict Arnold (traitor) to the U.S.
But, the real questions is why this foreign usurper is being put up with freakin kool-aid and schemes to be leader of the U.S.? Did Ted Kennedy want to live out his brother, RFK's dream? Is Saudi Arabia money involved? Is this a muslim coup to wipe out USA and Israel like the Trojan Horse of old?
That is really the question, the why?
Lawyer from Missouri
The Constitution was created to stop specific takeovers (e.g. coups) of our government by foreign usurpers.
Lawyer from Missouri,
You'll have an exceedingly difficult time trying to make a case for fraud in the inducement.
Think about the various steps in the process: Obama had to file paperwork with each of the Secretaries of State to qualify for a place on the Democratic primary ballots. Once that's done, he goes out and campaigns in each of the states as governed by the primary calendar. Ultimately, he becomes the Democratic nominee. Then, after the national party conventions, the general campaign begins, leading up to Election Day. On Election Day, the electorate casts its vote for Electors - not for the individual candidates. After the election, a tally must be taken by a joint session of Congress. Finally, a President is inaugurated.
The only part of the process that you could reasonably point to, to say "there is the instance of fraud that Obama committed," is the very first stage - his paperwork filings with the various Secretaries of State. Every subsequent stage could correctly point to the Secretaries of State and say "those people certified his paperwork."
Those cases (Party v. SoS) have a very low success rate so far. Very low.
Again, there was every opportunity to challenge the Electoral College vote when it was tallied by Congress: all it would take was a written objection signed by one Member of Congress and one Senator.
No one in the Congress submitted an objection - not in the House, and not in the Senate. Not a Republican, Democrat or Independent. The Electoral College vote is now certified.
The final step in the process is taking the Oath of Office, and there is no indication that Chief Justice Roberts would recuse himself of that task.
After the Oath, President Obama is, for all intents and purposes, the legal officeholder of President of the United States. The only way he could be removed would be by impeachment and conviction.
Any argument that he could not be impeached would work against the arguer. Why make the case that you can't remove the man from office when that's the only tool at your disposal?
As for the rest of your assertions, they're not based in fact: if you take out your copy of Black's and look at it, you'll see this definition:
"Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen at birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to."
-- Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Springer (1994)
Notice the lack of jus sanguinis in the definition. Citizenship by location, not by blood, which corresponds with British common law at the time the Framers drafted the Constitution.
Notice also the lack of dual citizenship as a limiting factor. Under US Code, there are only two types of citizen: natural born and naturalized. If you're born on US soil, you're a natural born citizen. Nothing in US Code, Supreme Court opinions or in the Constitution itself suggests otherwise.
To date, there is no admissible evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii, as his Certificate of Live Birth attests. There's a great deal of speculation, but it remains unfounded.
Again, if a legally admissible interview were to come to light, or a legally admissible certificate of birth (from anywhere but US soil) were to surface, impeachment on charges of fraud would be the only course of action.
Nice to see Victor getting his doctrine of the Constitutional framers' meaning from -- Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Springer (1994)
That's not quite right, Arlen. If you take another look, you'll see I presented a definition, not a statement of Framers' intent.
As you delve into the law more deeply, you'll come across Black's. This is what Wikipedia has to say about the publication:
"Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely-used law dictionary for the law of the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It has been cited as legal authority in many Supreme Court cases (see Secondary authority). The latest editions, including abridged and pocket versions, are useful starting points for the layman or student when faced with an unfamiliar legal word. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions."
All in all, that would qualify as a fairly authoritative work.
As far as Framers' intent, all we know is that the Framers wanted a natural born Citizen as President. Nothing in John Jay's writings indicates that he or any of the other Framers understood that term to mean "born on US soil of two citizen parents." In fact, that precept does not apply in British common law of the time.
I know we've spoken about de Vattel before, but you know that "The Law of Nations" is not a book of law - it's a book of legal theory. You should also know that Law advocates in its text the establishment of a state religion, to wit:
"If there by as yet no religion established by public authority, the nation ought to use the utmost care, in order to know and establish the best. That which shall the approbation of the majority shall be received, and publically established by law; by which means it will become the religion of the state." (book 1, chapter 12, §130)
"Finally, if the number of citizens who would profess a different religion from that established by the nation be inconsiderable; and if, for good and just reasons, it be thought improper to allow the exercise of several religions in the state - those citizens have a right to sell their lands, to retire with their families, and take all their property with them..." ((book 1, chapter 12, §131)
If de Vattel were the template for our Constitution, why do we have the First Amendment separation of church and state that we do?
To go back to Framers' intent, you have to go back to British common law, not de Vattel.
That wasn't a separation,but rather not to have an established Denomination dictating religion.The Founding Father's writings are relpete with reference to God,and the importance of Biblical precepts in government.As others,you are misinterpreting a private letter of Jefferson's that is never quoted in its entirety.And Black's is good,though I wouldn't trust any book written after 1960.Much of your musings are cicumlocutory and obfuscatory.I've been reading your posts Victor,and they are so weak that I'm leaving it to others to refute.But your reference to the old worn out Sep of church and state had me laughing so hard I had to respond.Go back and read some real history and you will understand what this crisis is all about.Socialsts want this to be a mob rule democracy,when we are fighting to restore the Constitutional Republic.Gee,you really believe Wikipedia?
Hey Anonymous you said on January 12, 2009 3:59 PM: "Mr. Obama will lead us in the great Socialist Revolution...". If socialism were a workable philosophic/political system, the Soviet Union would already be prospering under it. Anyone who knows anything about politics '101' knows that socialism is the intermediate step to full-blown communism. I respect your comments, but you don't realize the forces you and the Obama camp are messing with in trying to dismantle American democracy, freedom and all the liberties this magnificent country stands for, replacing it with socialism and 'spreading the wealth'. America affords the entire planet freedom in every way imaginable ALREADY, despite our numerous flaws, and unselfishly I might add. Most of all, America contributes to the cultivation of what is known as 'the work of enlightenment' by providing fundamental freedoms not only to it's citizens but to the entire planet. In a few words it's better to not even be born rather than to mess with 'the work of enlightenment'. If you don't understand this now hopefully someday you will. America is not a game. America has been divinely sanctioned.
I wonder if the Obots will "get over" their delusion before or after the Death to America operative hordes come pouring out of the wooden horse and begin slitting throats ...
Undoubtedly the Supreme Court must be fully aware of the catastrophic damage to the USA were Obama inaugurated and LATER determined inelligible (that is, all actions by the Federal Government under an inelligible Obama would be void or voidable). Is this why it has accepted the Anderson amicus brief and has retained two conference dates for stay of the inauguration (one before and one after), albeit sending the Berg case back to the Court of Appeals for resolution?
And why would the American media persist in its concerted blackout of this story which would seem to surpass even 9/11 in its importance to the American public?
In case you were wondering why your tin foil hat was beeping:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5
Obama MUST be stopped before inaguration!
To Victor,
If you are a lawyer, then I expect you to the know the following hiearchy as it pertains to controllity authority and those that are persuasive. Under federal law, the highest level of authority that the United States Supreme Court (and other lower federal courts) is to follow is the U.S. Constitution. Next in line, is federal statutes or laws enacted by Congress. Third in line is federal regulations. After that everything else is considered secondary sources. As it pertains to caselaw, the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are the highest. Next in line are decisions of the United States Circuit Courts (1st, 2nd, 8th, etc...). Finally, decisions of the United States District Courts.
Now, information from the Black Law's Dictionary is considered a SECONDARY SOURCE. That means it has no weight whatsoever in the Courts. It is fluff and just a start for people to start research information.
Natural born citizen clause is spelled out in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. The interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court is in the following two cases:
1. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
2. Perkins v. Elg (1939)
Wong Kim Ark is the first supreme court case that attempts to explain the meaning of NBC. Wong Kim Ark was only held to be a native born citizen because he was born in San Francisco, CA and not a natural born citizen because his parents were Chinesse Nationals.
Perkins is the supreme court case that actually gives examples of what a NBC is. Elg was held to be a natural born citizen because his parents were naturalized U.S. citizens and Elg was born in the Brooklyn, NY? (Review the case to know the specifics).
That is caselaw that is still good law for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the issue of BHO's eligibility to be POTUS.
Are there any questions?
From Lawyer from Missouri
Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come into the light for all to see...Amen. :) Thank you for all who are working so very to bring this "secrecy" out. :)
The TRUTH is about to take office.
Notice how the positions have already changed since the election.
You've been had and the wailing is about to begin. I'm glad Obama will be the POTUS he can put all the privileged and soloist independent minded to work. Here's your shovel you self important greedy lot. Now you will work for the benefit of all men.
The Revolution is about to begin!
Victor, 1/12, 11:08 PM
You said:
"To date, there is no admissible evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii, as his Certificate of Live Birth attests."
That appears to be true at this time, however, the evidence provided by Obama to prove his natural born status, a "Certification of Live Birth" NOT a "Certificate of Live Birth" has been judged by at least two expert witnesses to have been "altered", by one in court testimony. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if there is suspicion of doubt of authenticity of the "Certification", it should have to be proved authentic before it can be used to prove he was born in Hawaii or any other state.
Therefore there is also no admissible evidence available to prove that he is a natural born citizen until either Obama provides a properly documented copy of the vault birth certificate, that has supposedly been viewed by officials of the State of Hawaii, to prove that his Certification is correct in stating his place of birth was Honolulu, Hawaii, or a court order requires that the vault birth certificate be produced as evidence of his place of birth. To use a document that is suspicious in any way cannot possibly be proof of natural born status until it is proven to be correct at least to the location of birth aspect, and in my opinion demonstrates a high level of ignorance in the evidentiary value of such a document by both the supplier and also by those relying on that evidence.
I have been required to show my certified copy of my "Certificate of Live Birth" on many occasions during my life and I have never even tried to get a position requiring clearance for highly sensitive documents or restricted access, much less the office of the Presidency of the United States and most powerful office in the world. I expect Obama to produce his vault certificate for evidence of being natural born to at least a judge or high governmental official who believes in our Constitution!
The Constitutional onus for demonstrating eligibility is upon the candidate and those who are charged to run elections and certify them.
The burden of proof as to a presidential candidate's eligibility is hardly upon the Sovereign Citizen voter.
Thanks for the comments, Bob, others, and the encoragement, Kevan.
To the last posting, let me give you a quote by James Russell Lowell, an American Romantic poet during the 19th Century, states “Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.”
The TRUTH is not BHO (aka Barry Soetoro), but the truth is he is not eligible to be POTUS under the Constitution as required under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
In the Certification of Live Birth posted online,
look in the lower right hand corner,
see:
[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]
go to
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
and on the right click on
Hawaii Revised Statutes
and in the search box
enter
birth certificate
and then
certificate of birth
and you will find 41 HRS sections
HRS 338(b) states that it is SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
338-16, 338-17, 338-18
and HRS 338-19 states that it is a certificate that due to age or otherwise, is not used to certify to the correctness.
HRS 338-16, 338-17, 338-18
explain that the certificate WAS ISSUED ONE YEAR OR MORE AFTER BIRTH, AND/OR WAS ALTERED.
Also on the Certification of Live Birth on the internet,
it shows
(Rev. 11/01)
which might mean that it was revised in November 2001.
WHY? What needs to be hidden after Sept. 11, 2001?
If you read all 41 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes on
birth certificate
and
certificate of birth
you will see that Hawaii gives
birth certificates to an ADULT or
child
born in a foreign country,
or a PROBABLE COUNTRY OF FOREIGN BIRTH,
Hawaii gives birth certificates to
FOUNDLINGS
in case you find a baby behind the mango tree.
Hawaii RULE 803 allows HEARSAY so that you can call the birth registrar up on the telephone and say that your sister gave birth in a Taxi Cab and there was no nurse, no midwife, no doctor, it was an "unattended" birth, and you can receive a birth certificate.
This may aid an abet organized crime child trafficking if you are inclined to just find a foundling and/or kidnap a baby in a "probable country of foreign birth" and call the registar under Hawaii RULE 803 hearsay and get a birth certificate stating whatever you say, "AN ADULT" can do this in Hawaii, you don't have to be the parent.
SO, the list goes on and on,
I am sure you will find this exciting reading.
What I am hoping is the "AN ATTORNEY" will file a petition to the Supreme Court of the U.S.
TOMORROW and ask this question:
Shall the Supreme Court of the U.S. void, rescind, strike down, or ORDER the amendment of Hawaii Revised Statutes regarding
birth certificate
and
certificate of birth
(all 41 of them)
because they may have been written upon the requests of Lobbyists for organized crime child trafficking or illegal adoption syndicates;
and these laws are so vague as to be unconstitutional and so overly broad as to be unconstitutional,
and so reliant upon Hawaii RULE 803 hearsay as to be unconstitutional,
and also unconstitutional because there IS NO LIMIT to the times a person can have a certificate of birth in Hawaii "altered" and a new birth certificate issued,
and then get that one changed,
change the name or anything else,
and previous information can be changed under Hawaii law,
and all together, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, when read all together with RULE 803 Hawaii hearsay
(as opposed to federal Rule 803)
all together these laws create
a situation that could have resulted in the Certification of Live Birth,
allegedly being that of Obama,
being based on MANY ALTERATIONS,
and therefore this system in Hawaii violates the U.S. Constitution that requires a National system of naturalization,
and the Hawaii system conflicts with the usual system of immigration and naturalization because of all the allowed alterations and because there is NO LIMIT to the number of times you can gradually alter facts,
and each time get the previous birth certificate SEALED and a new birth certificate issued with new facts,
so, because this is a question of State Law violating the U.S. Constitution, violating the intention of naturalization laws to be UNIFORM,
then the Supreme Court has ORIGINAL JURISDICTION of this question, and the STANDING for "an attorney" to file this idea TOMORROW,
is because the U.S. Congress has already certified the Electoral College votes
and therefore a registered voter has no other recourse
because NOT ONE (1) U.S. Congressperson acted on behalf of the registered voters
who do not believe that Obama is a natural born citizen,
so, whereas BEFORE the certification of the electoral college votes, the Supreme Court of the U.S. could argue in private that democracy is a rule by the people but they obtain their rule through elected representatives,
because this is a republic, and representative democracy means our representatives act for us,
BUT not one (1) U.S. Congressperson acted on behalf of the registered voters who do not believe Obama is a natural born citizen,
therefore,
NOW an attorney would have standing.
Also, I want to point out that the Certification of Live Birth on the internet shows date of birth Aug. 4, 1961
and date filed with registrar Aug. 8, 1961
so look at a world map,
it is possible that Obama's mother left Kenya and gave birth in Israel,
or Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia or in the United Arab Emirates,
and then registered the birth "late" in Hawaii
which is allowed
under the legal notice on the Certification of Live Birth which in the lower right hand corner shows:
[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19] and 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of 338-16, 338-17, 338-18 WHICH INCLUDE allowing a person to file "Late" and allows Law enforcement to change the facts on a birth certificate if they certify that changing the facts with protect the person,and alterations are allowed and LATE filing is allowed.
YOU REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THE CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH AND READ IT, EVERY BIT OF THE TINY FINE PRINT, AND READ THE HRS Hawaii Revised Statutes.
That's your reading assignment for all night long,
then one of you who is an attorney NEEDS TO FILE A Petition based on the Hawaii Revised Statutes and how they conflict with the requirement
in the U.S. Constitution for a UNIFORM rule of naturalization,
and the additional question of HOW MANY TIMES has Obama's certificate been altered and a new one issued,
and did or did not any Law enforcement agency certify that he needs a change of facts to protect him,
and was this a (Rev. 11/01) Revision after SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 because he may have been born in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq, Iran or anywhere on Aug. 4, 1961 before his mother finally got to Hawaii and registered him "Late" as allowed in Hawaii.
Victor had stated:
I know we've spoken about de Vattel before, but you know that "The Law of Nations" is not a book of law - it's a book of legal theory. You should also know that Law advocates in its text the establishment of a state religion, to wit...
Chiefly, Vattel's work is an explanation of international and natural law and as such, was ranked by the Constitution's framers as of the highest earthly authority. As many authors, he takes diversions as he pleases. E.g., Victor -- your diversions are indeed exemplary.
On January 13, 2009 1:35 AM, Anonymous said: "That wasn't a separation, but rather not to have an established Denomination dictating religion."
Anonymous, you're exactly right. The original settlers came to America because they were persecuted in Europe, and wanted, among other goals, the freedom to practice their religion. Naturally, they would have been very wary of a single state religion imposed upon them - it would be a repeat of what they experienced in Europe.
Why, then, would they use "The Law of Nations" as a template for the Constitution when it advocates for the establishment of a state religion, as shown in the quotes above?
They wouldn't. de Vattel's work discusses many issues of legal theory, but it does not serve as the template from which the Constitution was drafted, nor does it serve as a basis of Framers' intent.
As far as Black's, if you're not happy with an edition post-1960, there's always the 1910 second edition.
When you state that "much of your musings are circumlocutory and obfuscatory," I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to point out what you're referring to. My goal in writing here is to present an argument in concise and clear terms.
Finally, if your goal is, as you state, to restore our Constitutional Republic, my earlier question stands: why are all of these cases being brought to court without the assistance of attorneys who specialize in Constitutional law? Wouldn't they be the first people to enlist?
To hell with 'standing', Hussein is the one who must meet a requirement__not We The People.
We The People do not need no stinking word called 'standing' the SOB BHO, is not eligible__throw him out.
Well said, Volubrjotr! Until he proves his eligibility, he is not eligible. He has yet to prove it!!
.
One post deleted, Victor: 1. attempting to dictate terms in my blog again and, 2. linking to specious agitprop for the neo-Marxist one. But, thank you for letting me know what you require of me. Read about the status the framers gave to Vattel's work, yourself, o assigned trolling one.
Very interesting Read , I am hopeful of a positive outcome. And what will follow People need to understand that this is of utmost importance. And if they would like to live in a collectivist Society there are Countries that would open their arms to them I am sure. We the People will Prevail And may the Constitution of the United States long live in the Country in which we reside. I wrote a poem so here goes.
depressing times seem to come and go
Are you waiting
for transparent times
time that appears
to come and fade away
look to the future
with bright eyes
and a smile on your face
do not let these times
weigh you down
or make you blue
every thing happens for a reason
whether it makes sense or not
because right always prevail
and the wrong is always put right in the end
so remember always have the right attitude
and eventually all will work in the end
America is going to see some tough times ahead
But Americans are strong and will persevere
do not fear in which you can not see
forge ahead and make your own destiny
And here is another that I wrote for my estranged wife but fits this problem also.
Long Narrow Road
Category: Writing and Poetry
Pondering thoughts
hoping for better times
waiting and listening
watching the madness unfold
lost moments in time
in which we never attain
or can never regain
will it be long
or a short time to come
waiting and listening
watching the madness unfold
we are headed down a narrow road
in which two can not fit
so when our elbows bump
i will step aside
waiting and listening
watching the madness unfold
are you ready for peace
as well as i am
an inner peace
that now is so hard to find
waiting and listening
watching the madness unfold
"1. Of all the cases presented to all the courts involved, seemingly none of these cases has been presented by a lawyer well-versed in Constitutional law. Why?"
I agree with that comment. Taitz and Berg are so silly and amateurish. Donfrio/Wrotnowski were more on the right track but incapable of putting it together properly. Granted it's a hard case to make with little tangible evidence but the lack of definition of "natural born" has to be a question someone with talent can pose to the court in a very precise way.
What's going to need to happen, both for evidence and for standing, is for some principled military officer/s, at a time of some new legislation re: openly gay behavior in the ranks - made through this "president" - to come forward and refuse to permit such openly known individuals to disrupt morale. Then he, the officer, will probably be relieved of duty for not following orders. His prosecution could then be appealed as far as necessary with his justification being the very ineligibility, under the constitution, through the very admittance of the "commander in chief" himself, to his own dual citizenship and dual loyalties at time of birth. And it would have even more weight if such an officer was one of noted bravery in past service. Perhaps this "type" of situation would have more public interest and support as well due to the very "ick" factor involved. The current poll of the voluntary military stating that a rather large number has stated refusal to re-enlist under such conditions would also give a serious undertone - esp. if such conditions would then logically force the necessity for the draft!!
I think the establishment is going along with BO's reckless and frenetic climb to the top while preparing for the inevitable fall.
From their standpoint, it must be an amusing game. Already, the long arm of the law can hammer Obama into a pancake thinner than the state of Kansas.
Someday everyone will be saying, well you know he should have known better.
On a different note, how about that awesome miracle that took place in the Hudson? I can't help but see an inspiring message - both engines were suddenly taken out, much like our economy has been taken out of order and the brains are gone in Washington.
The message was clear, leadership made up of highly intelligent, experienced and committed captains is what will save our country. An inspiring message of hope has been offered, our well being will come from an experienced pilot, not from self-interested parachuters like Pelosi and the self-interest groups represented by BO.
Like James Carville stated, "There is going to be an increase and fallout of Democratic Scandals with the Obama Presidency (if he is seated).
Also there are lawyers waiting for the first Presidential Order to be signed so they can file for injunctive relief as a means to challenge eligibility.
As an over view, there is alot of money being spent on this issue and many attempts (which so far only failed on procedural grounds) -- This in a good way ties up all excuses that a liberal court could muster, before the 'COUP DES GRACE'.
This is an excellent trail of legal minds exhausting all the 'procedural' arguments. Therefore, if all 'procedural arguments are exhausted and we still do not get in, then there remains only one conclusion___
"We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln
Volubrjotr,
When reading posts similar to the above, the one image that comes to mind is a scene from the movie "Monty Python and The Holy Grail."
If you're familiar with it, you may remember the character of the Black Knight. He was a valiant knight, but in his battle with King Arthur, he lost one arm, then another, then both of his legs... yet never admitted defeat, even when it was plain for all to see.
The court record of these challenge cases is, quite simply, terrible. 0-for-everything. That's a bad record, no matter how you're keeping score. Yet, like the Black Knight said, "it's just a flesh wound."
Unfortunately, this isn't a movie, and the court cases are real, and really dismissed.
"Only failed on procedural grounds?" After all the effort and money and attempts to challenge Barack Obama's eligibility, and none of the cases can pass muster on the most basic of procedural grounds? How is that supposed to inspire confidence in further cases?
If you look at the result of all these cases, it would be difficult in the extreme to reasonably assert that there is an "excellent trail of legal minds" doing anything in these cases. Just like other professions, lawyers specialize in various disciplines: some pursue criminal law, some practice civil law. Some are trial attorneys, and some focus on writing briefs. Some specialize in the Constitution.
None of the plaintiffs' attorneys in these cases are specialists in Constitutional law. Does this mean they can't plead their case? Not at all. But if you're trying to argue a Constitutional case, doesn't it make sense to bring in the Constitutional specialists? Those men and women would be the "excellent legal minds" you need.
There's a discussion of Berg v. Obama on The Right Side of Life. I would invite you, and anyone else interested, to read the first comment on the story, which references a summary of the issues written by Howard Appel.
"Also there are lawyers waiting for the first Presidential Order to be signed so they can file for injunctive relief as a means to challenge eligibility."
That's pretty silly. Why aren't those lawyers helping the current cases that have no skilled lawyers? Do those lawyers really expect Hawaii to have a file saying place of birth different than Honolulu?
If the lawyers in wait are hoping for a Donofrio/Wrotnowski style ruling of the SCOTUS to add further definition to "natural born" exclusionary to Obama that doesn't currently exist they will be sad to see even after the long process to get that, it won't be retroactive. I personally doubt "originalists" would go for that and leftist justices have shown disdain for each lawsuit.
To Victor, with regards to 'trail of procedures'.
The argument of 'standing' appears to be an innocuous way of saying 'Natural Born' does not have to be vetted. This answer has taken many lawyers by surprise in 'lower courts' and not by SCOTUS requiring a so called 'expert'.
During these days of absconding the Constitution (See 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals) it is not surprising nor foreseeable every turn an absconding Judge may take.
Your position appears to be linked to the argument of a 'constitutional expert' and the glass half empty (Black Knight) supposition.
My argument is about not putting the cart before the horse (Obama's Eligibility) and glass half full(The Little Engine That Could).
All this said, what remains to be answered is Obama's Eligibility.
Clearly, SCOTUS has denied until 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. What has transpired in the legal system should be clear circumstantial evidence of those involved to see this to the end.
A person cannot become President of the United States because 'some one' does not have standing. A person cannot become President of the United States because of a Judge's 'procedural' position. In actuality a person cannot become President because they were not born and naturalized here.
I still conclude, that there is an excellent trail here of allowing all the absconding Judge's all the rope they need. SCOTUS sees no urgency to break from procedure for an emergency injunction __ therefore the writing is on the wall for a Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ which is for after an inauguration.
BHO, if he should be removed from office has no one to blame save himself. BHO, spent over $800,000.00 to avoid showing SCOTUS on December 1st. 2008 his 'Vault version from Hawaii.
Common sense and the ordinary exercise thereof, is being denied and on a Constitutional Level.
So in the end I give little credence to the exceptional 'expert' position. I believe any man should be able to walk into court and ask for evidence of another man, to prove his eligibility if that man wishes to lead.
I believe the Lawyers who are fighting this battle have far more than any 'alleged' expert and that is perseverance and determination to succeed.
Perseverance is omnipotent!
"Nothing in this world can take the place of Persistence.
Talent will not; nothing is more commonplace than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genuis will not; unrewarded genuis is almost a proverb.
Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and Determination alone are omnipotent."
Calvin Coolidge
Anonymous said...
"That's pretty silly. Why aren't those lawyers helping the current cases that have no skilled lawyers? Do those lawyers really expect Hawaii to have a file saying place of birth different than Honolulu?
Its my position, that the argument for 'post inauguration' was gleaned from observing absconding Judge's and how to counter this 'justice denied' position. Sp I see nothing silly, in fact I see this as quit astute.
That said, If a person just uncovered from the INS factual evidence (which also exists in Berg's Pleadings) that Obama's mother arrived in Florida from Kenya three days after Obama Jr was born __what would SCOTUS do?
SCOTUS (for sake of argument, I'll make the decision for them)they would probably do what they have done to every pleading received so far and that is to wait until all lower courts (with arguments presently before them)have rendered their decision.
To suggest Berg is incompetent is to deny that Berg made an extraneous emergency type pleading before SCOTUS before an inauguration. Further, Berg has several other cases lined up behind this extraneous pleading for emergency injunctive relief.
There are several organizations ready in the wings for filing suits on any Presidential order Writ of ‘Quo Warranto'. I see this as perseverance and determination.
"BHO, if he should be removed from office has no one to blame save himself. BHO, spent over $800,000.00 to avoid showing SCOTUS on December 1st. 2008 his 'Vault version from Hawaii."
I have seen that 800k number repeatedly. Who originated it and how did they get it? Did Obama try to collect from Berg or does nobody have citation for this 800k rumor?
"To suggest Berg is incompetent is to deny that Berg made an extraneous emergency type pleading before SCOTUS before an inauguration."
Well his next cases all show me the same incompetence. Plus he fails to understand basic things. He claimed Response due December 1 to his petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed meant Obama HAD to respond and respond with his vault copy. Neither was true.
Berg also puts out bogus info on Obama's non-response to Berg's Rule 36 Requests for Admission. Obama had to respond OR object to responding in 30 days. Obama objected 22 days later and the case was dismissed before discovery. Berg can't PRETEND Obama admitted everything.
Anonymous said.....
Well his next cases all show me the same incompetence. Plus he fails to understand basic things. He claimed Response due December 1 to his petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed meant Obama HAD to respond and respond with his vault copy. Neither was true."
Complete mischaracterization of the point....
http://www.youtube.com/profile_video_blog?sid=54FAA29E29AD9139&id=00108B4D4833F382
Point is, Obama had until December 1st 2008 to file a response, but he chose spending $800,000.00 - $1,000,000.00 in Lawyers fees to refuse showing SCOTUS a $12.50 USD Vault Version Birth Certificate.
Alan Keyes said it on that video is your citation? That rumor preceeded this video and Keyes has no citation himself. In fact Keyes is blatantly wrong about what HI issues to citizens upon request for a birth certificate. COLB is STANDARD issue and for him to claim otherwise is wrong and ruins his credibility on a matter simple to confirm with the Hawaii Dept. of Health. Even Ron Polarik now admits COLB is what they send.
One count of Berg being wrong about Dec. 1
"In a statement today, Berg said he was told by a clerk for Souter that his application for an injunction to stay the election was denied. But he also said the defendants "are REQUIRED to respond to the Writ of Certiorari" by Dec. 1."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=80072
Granted World Net Daily is hot garbage and Berg figured out by Dec. 1 no response was REQUIRED but he spread the bogus version around enough to fool the bloggers pushing the story.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200811072518/editorial/america-the-beautiful.html
Claims Berg got info direct from Souter's clerk saying Obama had to produce the cert.
Anonymous said...
"Alan Keyes said it on that video is your citation?"
You must use critical thinking skills and exercise common sense. Obama had to defend himself from approximately 5-6 Federal Lawsuits with allegedly 'gifted' Harvard attorneys to prevent disclosure of a $12.50 USD. Remember now, the cost is going to go up when the other pending 14 Federal Lawsuits begin.
Obama is already a Lame Duck president (if seated) right from the starting gate. My recommendation is not to get too hung up on irreducible facts such as Obama's because he is lawyered up more than O.J.
Anonymous said...
Granted World Net Daily is hot garbage and Berg figured out by Dec. 1 no response was REQUIRED but he spread the bogus version around enough to fool the bloggers pushing the story."
Where's the $12.50 Vault Birth Certificate?
Again, if it was I or you we would have brought our $12.50 USD Vault Birth Certificate to Justice Souter on December 1st 2008. This would have been far more cost effective than imitating Clinton's multi million dollar ("depends on what is IS").
So again, it is a waste of time arguing procedural intricacies(unless you want the focus on the IS) when denying common sense.
Berg will get his man like Kenneth Star got Clinton, as "Bush Part Deux" is just now beginning with Barry Soetoro.
President George w. Bush on the 01.16.09., a legal action is being filed in the Federal Court in the Central District of California. The executive order provides for Reciprocity and Reinvestigation of Individuals in positions of public trust. Section 2 (e), provides for investigation of required level of character and conduct. On behalf of Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson attorney Orly Taitz has filed a legal action for a writ of Mandamus, declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief on the issue of legitimacy for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama aka Barry Soetoro and directing Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Director of FBI Robert Mueller, and director of Personnel Michael Hager to provide all necessary documentation in regards to Mr. Obama’s (Soetoro’s) legitimacy for presidency and US citizenship.
"You must use critical thinking skills and exercise common sense. Obama had to defend himself from approximately 5-6 Federal Lawsuits with allegedly 'gifted' Harvard attorneys to prevent disclosure of a $12.50 USD. Remember now, the cost is going to go up when the other pending 14 Federal Lawsuits begin."
Those lawsuits were about more than a birth cert. Berg, Taitz, Donofrio, Wrotnowski all offer other theories even if Obama disclosed a long form showing HI birth Obama would have to defend himself.
Anyway like I said you can't order a long form from HI for $12.50. They send computer generated COLBs and Keyes lies to say otherwise. People just make up BS like your $800,000.00 - $1,000,000.00 figure that you can't back up. Facts and procedural intricacies matter in courts just not in internet conspiracy junk.
01/19/09: PRESS RELEASE - Berg sends 2nd letter to Oprah, stressing that she is one that can have Obama withdraw his name to avoid damage to racial relations in the U.S. for years to come because when the truth comes out that Obama does “not” meet the “qualifications” for President as Obama is “not” “natural born” we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ by having an ‘ineligible’ President
Anonymous said...
"Those lawsuits were about more than a birth cert. Berg, Taitz, Donofrio, Wrotnowski all offer other theories even if Obama disclosed a long form showing HI birth Obama would have to defend himself. Anyway like I said you can't order a long form from HI for $12.50. They send computer generated COLBs and Keyes lies to say otherwise. People just make up BS like your $800,000.00 - $1,000,000.00 figure that you can't back up. Facts and procedural intricacies matter in courts just not in internet conspiracy junk."
Again, a Forest for the Tree reply.
Analyzing your position, even if it was all absolutely True, leaves the question intact __ Why doesn't BHO display his Vault Birth Certificate?
"Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday that she (11/01/2008) and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate." Which by the way is NOT a COLB = Certificate Of Live Birth.
Why doesn't Obama spend $12.50 to obtain the Vault Birth Certificate (VBC) to put an end to all these lawsuits instead of $800,000.00 to keep the Original Vault Copy from being reviewed?
NEXT Problem:
The COLB that you argue which was displayed on Obama's site has been analyzed and Affidavits Sworn To As Fraudulent. Now if Obama wants this to end and he knows he was born in Hawaii, I would if him obtain that VBC and make those so called Forensic Document Specialists take an embarrassing hike.
"Why doesn't BHO display his Vault Birth Certificate?"
Because he displayed one that any citizen is issued proving birth in Honolulu. Those asking for vault copies lie about him in their lawsuits and he owes them nothing.
"Why doesn't Obama spend $12.50 to obtain the Vault Birth Certificate (VBC) to put an end to all these lawsuits instead of $800,000.00 to keep the Original Vault Copy from being reviewed?"
You are slow. They do not mail vault copies when you request birth cert they send short form COLB. You lie about what he spent.
"The COLB that you argue which was displayed on Obama's site has been analyzed and Affidavits Sworn To As Fraudulent. Now if Obama wants this to end and he knows he was born in Hawaii, I would if him obtain that VBC and make those so called Forensic Document Specialists take an embarrassing hike."
Affidavits by TechDude and Dr. Ron Polarik? 2 fake names with fake credentials? It is embarrassing that someone presents that to court. Obama can never end internet conspiracy kooks. Lawsuits will end their own sad selves.
Anonymous said..
"Because he displayed one that any citizen is issued proving birth in Honolulu. Those asking for vault copies lie about him in their lawsuits and he owes them nothing."
For the record, Obama displayed a COLB (Which Is Not A Birth Certificate) and it was displayed and now forever documented on 4 Internet sites (of which I will not mention, but one rhymes with Muffington) which have all been sworn to have been differentiated at the Forensic level and sworn to in Affidavits. Collusion can be an ugly thing ..don't you think? OBTW, didn't you say before his excuse for NOT having a vault version was because COLBs must be computer generated?
Anonymous said...
"You are slow. They do not mail vault copies when you request birth cert they send short form COLB. You lie about what he spent."
When BHO/Barry Soetoro went to Hawaii belly surfing this summer and/or when his maternal GMa passed away (God Rest Her Soul) HE DIDN'T NEED IT MAILED.
Come on Sparky, all your arguments are really limp here.
Anonymous said...
"Affidavits by TechDude and Dr. Ron Polarik? 2 fake names with fake credentials? It is embarrassing that someone presents that to court. Obama can never end internet conspiracy kooks. Lawsuits will end their own sad selves."
So now a $12.50 Original Vault Birth Certificate that Barry should have shown to the American Public, must now be defended from "two fake names with fake credentials"?
Again, you have placed the cart before the horse.
Testimony via Affidavits was from (three) forensic document specialists about the COLB.
NO ONE HAS SEEN THE ORIGINAL VAULT LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Lets not forget Berg's 'SEALED' Lawsuit and INS documentation about Lady Obama showing up from Kenya in Florida 3 days after Obama Jr was supposedly born in Hawaii.
Then lets not forget about dual citizenship of Indonesia argument which is moot because Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship. No wonder the MSM did the Media Blietz Krieg with Obama for nearly two months before inaguration and the $176,000,000.00 pimp my inauguration festivities.
Try explaining that cost to the California Citizens who just found out today that starting with their February Checks the Aged, the disabled, and the needy families of children will no longer receive their $300,000,000.00 monthly welfare checks.
Why doesn't Obama take and direct that $176,000,000.00 to California and help ole Arnold out. You do know that Arny recused himself from running for President of the U.S. because though he is a taw paying sworn to defend American Citizen.. he was born in Austria.
Well the truth will set us all free....eh?
"has been judged by at least two expert witnesses to have been "altered"
name them please, courts not partial to hearsay, name them or shut up!
Birth cert investigation
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
Again, Where's the Original Vault Birth Certificate?
You are quibbling about a certificate of live birth which was forged as well. The colb posted on Obama's site, is not the Original Vault Birth Certificate.
That said, the fraudulent colb is part of the circumstantial evidence of intent. You can study the fraudulent COLB at polarik.blogtownhall.com
Keep in mind a colb is a simple short form (stating someone is alive) and does not replace an ORIGINAL VAULT/LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Keep in mind, there are already two forensic document experts in the Hochberg Case, of which Polarik is now under a course of protective due to death threats by liberal extremists. This is highlighted by 3 homosexuals who were executed coup de grace within 40 days of each other. These three people were from Trinity Church where Barry Soetoro AKA Obama just recently left. After the 3rd and final murder of Donald Young, Obama left the Church within several months.
https://www.therant.us/staff/rush/2008/09152008.htm
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/larry-sinclair-affidavit.pdf
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59456
In the Keye's Lawsuit from california against Obama's eligibility they use Sandra Ramsey Lines.
Here is her sworn affidavit:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10266528/Keyes-v-Lingle-Decl-of-Sandra-Lines
http://www.abfde.org/FindExpert.html
Philip Berg has three forensic document scientists under seal via testified Affidavits. For those names you may contact Philip Berg directly.
http://www.obamacrimes.info/103008Affidavit%20of%20Bishop%20Ron%20McRae.pdf
Read #35 & #36
http://www.obamacrimes.info/082108ObamaComplaint.pdf
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court #12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Everyone does understand any court decisions would only apply to future elections, right?
No federal court has the ability to remove a sitting President.
"Everyone does understand any court decisions would only apply to future elections, right?"
The key word is PRESIDENT.
Plus
Don't let the second Oath of Office throw you a curve in falsely interpreting this motive, as a characteristic of one NOT falsely signing that he IS eligible.
Further, on the second swearing in, where was Obama's right hand - where was the Bible -THERE WAS NONE. Thats right, it was done only to portray to the public that this fellow is avant-garde to 'details & righteousness' ---
NOT!!!!!!
Volubrjotr,
The Constitution does not specify that the oath-taker has to swear on a Bible in order for the oath to be valid.
The second taking of the oath of office was done to make sure that Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath correctly, in accordance with the words as written.
GAME - SET - MATCH ???
You lawyers out there need to provide a full explanation, but here is the gist of the story:
Many of us have been frustrated by the fact that Obama will not be disqualified for not being a Natural Born Citizen (he most definitely is not). But this is a rather special legal term that essentially nobody understands. Many people might think of this as capital punishment for someone going 36 in a 35 speed zone. But for those of us who know that Obama is not a US citizen - surely that is the "atomic bomb" that will catch everybody's attention and get him tossed in with OJ Simpson where he belongs.
But - maybe not - - -
Last May, Obama was unexpectedly and mysteriously adopted by a Native American family. The best anyone could figure at the time, it was just a quirky ceremonial way to extend his base of special interest groups. But why all the bizarreness for a few Indians - surely they have no substantive effect on the election.
But now we learn that Native Americans are given a great deal of leeway in such practices and that any Native American (including adoptees) becomes quickly and automatically a US citizen. Just present some tribal papers at a local courthouse and - VIOLA! - no green cards, no waiting periods, no tests, no oaths of allegiance, nothing. Instant citizenship.
Obama's Native American parents had a VIP pass to the inauguration. His daughters have been quietly getting to know them over the summer and have been calling them Grandpa and Grandma for months.
Carlyle said...
"You lawyers out there need to provide a full explanation, but here is the gist of the story"
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2009/090121/frntpgBerg.html
http://www.obamacrimes.info/120408MotionThirdCircuitInjunction.pdf
"Many of us have been frustrated by the fact that Obama will not be disqualified__"
The issue is NOT dispositive, unless you know something that the 20 Federal Litigants do not know.
"Last May, Obama was unexpectedly and mysteriously adopted by a Native American family."
LMAO! :O)
Obama's ex-homosexual partner Larry Sinclair was invited and was given a front row seat at the inauguration. Now put that in your peace pipe and smoke it :O)
If "President Obama" were ever to be introduced to me, then I suppose I will have to respond by saying, "How!"
[volubrjotr] - if you would bother to read, you would find that I post many things here and I am not an OBOT. Further, if you bother to reread by comment, you will see that it is reverse of what you seem to think it says. What I am saying is that many of us have thought of the US Citizen "card" to be the ace in the hole, the clincher. It now seems that he found a way to get himself instant citizenship. And before you belittle that idea, I would suggest you get fully informed in the arcania and minutiae of all the Indian Affairs legislation and accepted practices. This is a real issue, not a joke.
Take the test.
FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?
ANSWER: Joe Biden
Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.
SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?
ANSWER: Hillary Clinton
One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.
THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?
ANSWER: Yet undetermined.
Hawaii officials have NEVER said the birth certificate is authentic. If one views the original statement released by the Hawaii officials, one will find the official actually states: “…have personally seen and varified that the Hawai’i Department of Health has Senator Obama’s ----original birth certificate---- on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” See original here:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
Thus knowing that it is common practice for those born outside of the state (and the country) may obtain a Certificate of Live Birth (such as has been posted on Mr. Obama’s website) one can surmise that an official “viewing Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate on record” does not mean that it is a Hawaiian birth certificate.
WAIT IT DOES GET BETTER :O)
The document they are showing as proof that Obama is a Natural born Citizen as the constitution requires is no proof of birth in the US or Hawaii.
----If presented a COLB, Hawaii requires supplementary documentation of proof of birth in Hawaii.----
Here is an affadavit stating Obama’s grandmother was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya:
http://peoplespassions.org/Exhibits/SarahObamaInterviewTranscript.pdf
Volubrjotr,
The Certification of Live Birth is prima facie evidence. Do you understand the meaning of that term? It means that the certification is "sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved."
This means that Obama has furnished proof of his birth on US soil, which in turn means that he is a natural born citizen (Arlen's assertion to the contrary, jus soli is the basis of natural born citizenship, not jus sanguinis.) In addition, his certification proves that he is over 35 years old. Put the two together, and you have proof that Barack Obama was an eligible candidate for President.
When Dr. Fukino stated that she has "seen and verified" Barack Obama's birth record, does it not stand to reason that the document she viewed was authentic? Why else would she have verified it?
When you assert that "knowing that it is common practice for those born outside of the state (and the country) may obtain a Certificate of Live Birth...", you neglect to mention that by law, this practice can only apply to people born after 1972, which does does include Barack Obama.
When you assert that "If presented a COLB, Hawaii requires supplementary documentation of proof of birth in Hawaii," you neglect to mention that this condition only applies if someone is seeking status as a native (aboriginal) Hawaiian, which does not apply in Obama's case.
Finally, when you read the transcript (and thank you for the link to it), you have to ask yourself if Sarah Obama thought she was being asked about her son Barack, or her grandson Barack, because Bishop McRae mentions both, there are frequent "unintelligibles" in the transcript, and it's evident that the translation between English and Luo is spotty at best.
Victor: The Certification of Live Birth is prima facie evidence. Do you understand the meaning of that term?
No, it is not. It is a computer print-out which is to be referential to the actual birth certificate, which, as has been explained ad nauseum to you, "Victor," is, itself is a loophole for those throughout, history, who have been born in another nation.
More posts of this kind will again, become deleted, due to thier obfuscation, rationalizing pil-pul argument around the periphery (a.k.a., "beating around the bush," a.k.a., "red herrings") -- and being concomitant with deceit, somewhere along the way, let the fomenter beware.
Victor, before I decide whether or not to spend time upon your legal jargon, the arguments I have seen from you regarding against the meaning of natural born Citizenship are post-constitutional, therefore they are impertinent.
Feel free to expound about how "natural" does not refer to "natural" though it did to the framers so naturally that no further definition inside the Constitution was deemed helpful, to say nothing of necessary -- somewhere else.
Volubrjotr, If you happen to have time, I'll let you handle setting Victor straight on "1972." Sun Yat Sen may be looking on, from some place.
Arlen,
When you look at the bottom of the certification, you'll see this statement:
"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
So yes, it is prima facie evidence. Obama could take that physical document to any court in the US, and a judge would allow it as legal, admissible evidence.
No matter how frequently you want to repeat otherwise, the COLB, by itself, is a legally admissible document.
Just as you have to read the instructions to understand them, you have to read the law before you can understand it and use it in making effective arguments.
You may not like the fact that the COLB is a valid document, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. When you try to deny the facts, or re-interpret the plain meaning of statements, you become the obfuscator, Arlen.
Sorry, Ted, still wrong.
There is no oath of office for the vice-president specified in the Constitution.
Only the president swears (or affirms) an oath, no Bible required.
Once that happens the ONLY way to remove them from office is via impeachment.
No federal court, even the USSC, has the authority to remove any president.
Bill said..
"Once that happens the ONLY way to remove them from office is via impeachment.
No federal court, even the USSC, has the authority to remove any president."
Excellent point___and the operative word IS President.
Mao Tse Tung could have recited the Oath Of Office and the Bible tho not present is irrelevant, the Oath to God is irrelevant for the Constitutional Requirement of "NATURAL BORN".
Why has Obama spent to date over $800,000.00 to prevent disclosure of his ORIGINAL VAULT BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
The COLB is immaterial except for the fact it will serve later for circumstantial evidence of "intent".
Victor said...
“So yes, it is prima facie evidence. Obama could take that physical document to any court in the US, and a judge would allow it as legal, admissible evidence.”
This is all fine and well for sundry but does not suffice for “Natural Born Citizen”.
Obama is well aware he is not a United States Citizen and does
not qualify as a “natural born” citizen. Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, at
which time he was twenty (20) years old and used his Indonesian Passport, not a
United States passport. Indonesia does not provide for dual citizenship.
Obama allowed the Daily Kos to post on their website www.dailykos.com. an image of a
Certification of Live Birth with Obama’s name on it purporting to be Obama’s birth
certificate. This same image was also placed on Obama’s website,
http://fightthesmears.com and on another website located at http://factcheck.org. The
image placed on these websites is of a Hawaiian document which is provided for
children’s births in Hawaii as “natural born”, as well as births abroad, which have been
registered in Hawaii, whether the citizenship status was “natural born” or “naturalized.”
Thus, the image did not prove Obama’s citizenship status as a “natural born” United
States Citizen. The images placed on these three (3) websites were later discovered by
Independent Graphic Specialists to be altered and forged images.
On the Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record it
specifically asks for “Full former name(s). Obama put “None,” when in fact he went by
the name Barry Soetoro, and Barry Obama. It is further believed Obama has used the
name Barry Dunham. Obama lied on the State government form that he signed under the
penalty of perjury.
Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of his birth stated
if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his
mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in
the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of
Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the
residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship. The
laws in effect at the time of Obama’s birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children
born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was
under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama’s mother did
not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a “natural born” citizen.
Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163,
235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved
(Att’y Gen. 1944).
The GOP on June 9th 2008, sent a research team to Mombasa, Kenya and
located the Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. Obama was born at Coast
Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province,
to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen.
08/21/08: Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order
Taking time to nullify the first Oath of Office on technicalities and then repeating the Oath Of Office w/o The Holy Bible is technically inept.
When George Washington took the Oath of Office they did not have a Bible when they were about to begin. The chief justice of New York’s Supreme Court had admonished George Washington and everyone present that an oath that was not sworn on the Bible would lack legitimacy. When Washington was finished, adding the phrase, “So help me God,” he bent down and kissed the Bible.
The way I see it is this now.
We asked the Supreme Court to make a Decision concerning the definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" and how it relates to Barack Hussein Obama II/Barry Soetoro. Since Justice Roberts Swore him in (Twice) tells me that they have already made their decision. That they believe that Barry Soetoro is indeed a Natural Born Citizen due to his Mother being a Citizen (Senate Resolution 511, the Federalist Papers and the John Jay Letter not withstanding. It seems that our only hope now is Patrick Fitzgerald, Leo Denofrio again with the Federal Grand Jury, or a new Election in the next four years if the 22nd Amemdment is not thrown out like one of Obama's Aborted Babies. We may even be able to put in some Independant, and Constitutionalist Senators and Congressmen/Women in to the Legislative Branch in 2010. I Hope that Barry doesn't screw the country up too badly. Praying every night.
Anonymous said...
"We asked the Supreme Court to make a Decision concerning the definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" and how it relates to Barack Hussein Obama II/Barry Soetoro. Since Justice Roberts Swore him in (Twice) tells me that they have already made their decision."
The merits of Obama's ineligibility have not been legally reviewed by the SCOTUS. To date, we are only going by what Obama signed in Arizona and that was by, his own signature, stating he was eligible.
As you know SCOTUS was prevented by Obama by procedure not to view his Original Vault Birth Certificate on December 01, 2008.
[victor] you are so confused and grasping at straws. No internet document is evidence of anything. I could just as easily post an authentic looking document with a legend claiming "suitable as prima facie evidence". So what. For any document to have have validity as evidence, you must establish a clear pedigree and chain of custody. This is why everything you say is crap and why everything "document experts" say is worthless in regards this document. This document is a non-entity, legal-wise. Period.
[volubjrtor] - what is this news about GOP sending delegation to Kenya and verifying Obama born in Kenya. Tell us more! Reference?
Carlyle said....
" why everything "document experts" say is worthless in regards this document. This document is a non-entity, legal-wise. Period.
The document experts are relied upon for 'fraud' and 'intent'.
Barack Obama was born in Kenya in 1961 to an American woman, Stanley Ann Dunham, and a Kenyan man, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, as reportedly shown by a birth certificate from Mombasa Maternity Hospital. According to the law at that time, a parent could pass US citizenship on to a child born abroad if the parent was at least 19 years old. Obama's mother was only 18.
No hospital birth certificate has been produced to show Obama was born in Hawaii, only a certificate of birth registry after the fact, which forensics experts have denounced as a forgery.
Moreover, when Obama was six years old his mother remarried and moved with her husband to his country, Indonesia. Records indicate Obama was naturalized as an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia does not allow dual nationality, so even had he been born in Hawaii, he would have lost his citizenship then.
Even if Obama is able to provide a US birth certificate, a dozen more insurmountable scandals face this unelectable candidate, which the Republicans can hardly wait to unleash on him after he is nominated. Bambi is going down and Fox News knows, Rush, and the rest...just watch Fox News for example, their condemnations of the liberal wing is taking a bitting tone now.
Do not forget the sealed Lawsuit waiting in the wings...East India Company boys will take the heat on this one Rothchilds/Soros included.
Yes, I believe also that the evidence is heavily leaning towards the Kenya birth. I was looking for more information specifically about "The GOP on June 9th 2008, sent a research team to Mombasa".
Russia comments on Barry Soetoro...
3 pages
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106972-0/
Carlyle GOP Kenya
On February 25, 2008, WMR was the first to report that a GOP opposition research team had arrived in Kenya to dig up dirt on Obama and his father: "WMR's intelligence sources in Africa are reporting that amid the post-election turmoil wracking Kenya, a three-person team (including a possible Korean-American woman) arrived in Nairobi last week and began asking questions about Barack Obama's father, the late Barack Obama, Sr. The team also inquired about the Senator Obama Secondary School in Nyangoma-Kogelo in northwestern Kenya, the area where Obama's father, an ethnic Luo, hailed and where his grandmother, Sarah Ogwel Onyango, still lives."
It now appears that this same team traveled to Mombasa and dug up a certificate registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr., to his father, a Kenyan citizen, and mother, an American citizen. The GOP hopes to make the claim that Senator Obama is not eligible to become President of the United States because he was born in a foreign country, or, at the very least, plant the seed in the voters' minds that Obama is a foreigner even if the charge is false.
GOP operatives are already trying to make political hay out of the federal conviction on June 4 of Chicago Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko on 16 of 24 corruption charges. The Republicans are attempting to show that Rezko had close links to Obama although the probe was more closely connected to the administration of Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich. If Rezko becomes a centerpiece of the GOP campaign against Obama, expect Democrats to resurrect John McCain's role as one of the infamous "Keating Five" US Senators. McCain was tarnished in the corruption and bribery investigation of failed Lincoln Savings and Loan chief Charles Keating in 1989.
The investigative reporter has published the following:
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/search?searchtext=kenya
This is also addressed in Berg v Obama complaint:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/Berg-Obama-Complaint-v1.pdf
This can be seen only as probable cause at this point. So when this moves beyond 'procedural' and into 'merit', like the Original Vault Birth certificate it would have to be produced.
Where Obama was born:
http://bostonglobe.longjaunt.com/photos/2008/03/30/mombasa/1/
Congress sued to remove
prez from White House
'Defendants had to ensure
the Constitution is upheld'
Posted: January 31, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
2009 WorldNetDaily
A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.
The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.
It is being brought on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Bishops required by canon law to refuse Communion to pro-abortion politicians: Vatican official
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=1895
Archbishop Raymond Burke has repeated his argument that bishops are obligated by canon law to withhold Communion from public officials who support legal abortion. "The Church's law is very clear," the archbishop told LifeSite News in an exclusive interview. Archbishop Burke, formerly of the St. Louis archdiocese, speaks with considerable authority on matters of canon law, since he is now the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the Church's top canonical court.
Post a Comment