Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

(Continuation of the previous post...)

Originally Posted by jbjd

Now that I see Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, Mr. Cronin’s answer makes even more sense. That is, between his use of the singular “Certification”; and the delay between the date his letter was written and the date this was received by the HI Election Office’ it would make sense that the DNC gave the documents to the HDP who then forwarded these to the HI Elections Office.

When butterdezillion wrote her ‘seminal’ Certification article on September 10, 2010, she knew none of this. Thus, based on her faulty assumptions about how the DNC and HDP letters of Certification reached the HI Election Office, she asks, “The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?” And answered it with that contrived story.

A more plausible answer as to why the HDP did not add the line about Constitutional eligibility in 2008 like they had in 2004 and 2000 likely could come from anyone reading the work produced on my blog. Here’s a hint: what information highlighted in COUP http://jbjd.org/2010/08/17/a-coup-th...hrough-2-of-3/ (2 of 3) and http://jbjd.org/2010/09/06/a-coup-th...hrough-3-of-3/ (3 of 3) led to my conclusion, Obama and the DNC had identified which Clinton pledged delegates were from vote binding states? Yep; it’s those state Delegate Selection Plans. As I told you, provisions in the DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan for 2006 required, in order to obtain final approval from the RBC for state delegate selection plans for use in the 2008 election cycle, state parties were required to submit those plans to the RBC accompanied by all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn...._jjm6ib44l.pdf In this way, the DNC could monitor any idiosyncratic requirements in individual states so as to ensure Obama’s name would qualify to get onto every general election ballot.

I assumed this provision was not included in the 2002 DNC model delegate selection rules to be used in the 2004 election, and that’s why the HI state party (and, presumably, state parties in other states) handled their special Certifications on their own. Finally, I had time to check my hypothesis; and I was right.

Delegate Selection Rules
For the 2004 Democratic National Convention
http://www.scribd.com/doc/192090

In other words, where changes would be required in the language of the Certification of Nomination to satisfy the law of individual states, in 2006, the DNC began assuming responsibility for all such changes.

And that would explain why in 2008 the HDP did not certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office but the DNC did.
*********************************
http://jbjd.org/2011/06/29/could-be-...l-explanation/

IMO, jbjd made a logic error. According to jbjd, HDP Chairman Brian Schatz did not fraudulently mislead the Hawaii Elections Office, because he submitted his HDP certificate of nomination for Obama-Biden, without any "candidates are Constitutionally eligible" statement, the day before the DNC released, only for Hawaii, a certificate of nomination which did include that statement.

But that "out-of-order" submission is evidence that:

after the DNC published its original, defective certificate of nomination for the other 49 states on Aug. 23, 2008,

Brian Schatz, Mr. Obama's Hawaii campaign spokesman, knowing that Mr. Obama was not Constitutionally eligible, determined not to perjure himself by vouching for Mr. Obama about eligibility that he did not have. HDP chairman Schatz had the HDP publish a similarly defective certificate of nomination for Hawaii on Aug. 27, 2008,

which compelled the DNC to publish a certificate of nomination and eligibility just for Hawaii on Aug. 28, 2008.

Mr. Schatz's possible criminal act is not his timing, that he submitted the HDP certificate of nomination before the DNC released its certificate of nomination, but his complicity, that he cooperated with DNC Chairperson Rep. Nancy Pelosi and DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond on their perjurious "candidates are Constitutionally eligible" statement. Mr. Schatz did not report that fraudulent statement to the Hawaii Elections Office or anyone else. Instead of blowing the whistle on Pelosi, Germond, and the DNC, he merely added his true HDP certificate of nomination to the false DNC certificate of nomination and Constitutional eligibility, and he passed them both along to the Hawaii Elections Office.

If it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Schatz knew on Aug. 28, 2008, that Mr. Obama was Constitutionally ineligible for the Office of President, then he was knowingly complicit in perjury and election fraud by passing the DNC certificate of nomination along to the Hawaii Elections Office without reporting it as fraudulent and perjurious.

On Dec. 31, 2011, Mr. Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012.

It takes effect on Feb. 29, 2012, 60 days after its signing.

This NDAA for FY2012 contravenes the U.S. Constitution in Amendments IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII;
it effectively amends the Constitution without the required ratification by 38 states;
it suspends posse comitatus, sine die, or does away with it altogether, creating a military police state;
it authorizes the military to use armed force against U.S. civilians and legal residents; and
it authorizes the military to arrest civilians, U.S. citizens and legal residents, as terrorist suspects, and to detain said civilians indefinitely in military custody, in secret, without a warrant, without charges, without a trial, without counsel except as provided by the prosecution (the military), and without due process or habeas corpus or other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Subject: NDAA FY2012 on Mr. Obama's desk gives him standing authorization for martial law
From: "Senator@DeMint.senate.gov" <Senator@DeMint.senate.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:36 PM

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year (FY) 2012. I appreciate hearing from you on this very important issue.

One of the most important functions of the federal government is to provide for the common defense of the United States. To do this, Congress must authorize funding for the Department of Defense each fiscal year. The Senate version of the bill, S. 1867, was passed on December 1, 2011, and entered conference negotiations to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills. The final version of the defense authorization was passed on December 15, 2011. I voted against final passage of this bill. *

Like you, I had concerns about detainee language, wasteful spending, and other issues in the legislation. I voted for an amendment [which failed twice] by Senator Diane Feinstein of California, intended to preserve protections for citizens on American soil. Despite some improvements made, I do not believe the bill has sufficiently achieved those needed protections. The NDAA also contains more than $200 million in unrequested funding for the purpose of continuing earmarks.

Rest assured that I believe the funding and safety of our troops is of the highest priority, and I will continue working to support the efforts of our service-members and their families. I will also continue to fight for the protection of American civil liberties and against policies that do not afford citizens their constitutionally guaranteed rights. . ."

* Sen. DeMint voted for the bill before he voted against it, until he recognized that S.1867 authorizes indefinite detention in military custody of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, without charges and without trial, suspending habeas corpus and due process, upon a mere claim of suspicion of association with terrorists linked to al Qaeda.

[The] following is what Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said about this bill, in response to an e-mail [my friend] sent him:

Subject: Re: NDAA FY2012 on Mr. Obama's desk gives him standing authorization for martial law
Date: Thursday, December 29, 2011, 2:03 AM

I do not believe terrorists should be brought to the United States and granted the same rights and privileges as American criminal defendants. Terrorists should be kept at Guantanamo Bay and prosecuted through the military commissions established by Congress under the terms circumscribed by the United States Supreme Court. Trying to hold civilian trials in the United States for terrorists does nothing more than place Americans at risk, while providing terrorists with a platform from which to spew their hate-filled ideology and recruit like-minded fanatics around the world to join them in jihad. We must not forget that we are a nation at war against ruthless killers who wear no uniforms and deliberately target innocent civilians. Treating their war crimes as ordinary criminal acts and trying these killers in a civilian court under the U.S. Constitution would simply be reverting to a dangerous, pre-9/11 mentality.

As you may know, Congress passed the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009, making a powerful statement that U.S. civilian courts are not the appropriate venue to bring terrorists to justice. The military commissions were specifically designed to prevent damaging disclosures and to protect classified information, as well as sensitive sources and methods. We know that these military commissions have a long history in our Republic—dating back from the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, to World War II. They are the most appropriate forum for terrorists to be tried for their crimes. Furthermore, in its 2004 opinion Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court recognized that, in accordance with longstanding principles under the law of war, an individual determined to be an enemy combatant, including a U.S. citizen, can be detained by the Executive Branch until the end of the military campaign against al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups.

Therefore, I supported [unsuccessful] amendments to the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012 NDAA; S. 1867) regarding terrorist detention practices. It is important to note that these provisions do not extend any new legal authorities to detain U.S. citizens, rather they clarify existing authorities as utilized by the President and recognized by the Supreme Court. Section [1031] of the final version of the FY 2012 NDAA (H.R. 1540) would reaffirm the President’s indefinite detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107—40). Additionally, Section [1032] would require military detention for a certain subset of unprivileged enemy belligerents—members of al Qaeda and affiliated entities—pending their disposition under the law of war. By its own terms, Section [1032] explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement for military detention. These provisions were originally included in the FY 2012 NDAA that was unanimously reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), and they remain in the final version of the FY12 NDAA that was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. H.R. 1540 has now been transmitted to the President to be signed into law.

[The] following is what [my friend's 11th] district rep, Mike Conaway (R-TX), said about the NDAA for FY2012:

"While this bill is central to a functioning national security, there was a misunderstanding regarding the detainee provisions. This provision does not address or extend new authority to detain U.S. Citizens. What it does do is affirm that the military may lawfully detain individuals who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States, as stated by the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. The bill adds explicit protections for American citizens as well as a prohibition against the President waiving such protections."

[Each of the above fuchsia-colored statements is false or inaccurate:
either intentionally misleading disinformation, or more likely, unknowingly mistaken misinformation.]

The biggest difference between the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107—40) and the NDAA for FY2012 (H.R. 1540 / S. 1867) is the political environment. In 2001, a terrorist was widely understood to be either an Is|amist terrorist or another such enemy of the U.S. with similar motives, objectives, and m.o.. Today, the term "terrorist" is variously interpreted by federal agencies to mean a small child or a grandmother in a wheel chair waiting in line to board a plane, a combat veteran returning home from Iraq or Afghanistan, "bible-thumpers, gun-clingers, home-schoolers, abortion clinic protesters, apocalyptic or 'rapture-ready' Christians, off-grid survivalists, income tax-objectors, Alex Jones-quoting New World Order cranks, and persons 'overly fixated upon the Constitution and the rule of law.'" You know, the profile that used to depict "Christians of morally and ethically upright character" and "upstanding, law-abiding citizens."

Taitz Can Depose Obama - Court Refuses To Drop Eligibility Case!



Thank you god!!! I am ready to cry! After 3 years of battle for the first time a judge ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. I can now depose Obama and everybody else envolved without any impediment.

Posted on | January 3, 2012 | 100 Comments

Farrar Motion to dismiss by Obama is denied

I still can’t believe this. The order is in the link above. Judge Malihi, Deputy Chief judge of the Administrative court in GA, ruled, that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. He will have to stand trial and prove his eligibility for office.

This is particularly sweet, as it is happening in GA, where judge Clay D. Land maligned me so badly and attacked me with $20,000 of sanctions in order to silence me, to stop me from challenging Obama. Judge Land was sending a message to other attorneys and intimidating them, de facto telling them, “you dare to go after Obama, raise the issue of his forged birth certificate and invalid Social Secrity number, establishment will attack you and sanction you, just like attorney Taitz”

Now judge Malihi is sending a message: “nobody is above the law”

I am filing a motion for judicial notice in the other 5 courts, where I have cases. Please, spread the word.

I wanted to thank evrybody, who was helping me so far to repay those $20,000, who donated to help me fly to other states, including my prior flights to GA.

PS I have a professional video cassette, shot by Kevin Powell, where I together with Carl Swenssen, Kevin and a number of GA civil rights leaders visited offices of prior governor Sonny Purdue, Attorney General, elections board, Sec of State, CNN and so on. The video cassette is in a format, that I can’t play or upload on you-tube channel. If someone knows, how to convert it, let me know, I will post it. I think, it is called Sony DVCAM 94 Advanced ME.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29976

Orly Taitz - PDF Of Denial Of Obama Motion To Dismiss - PDF

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-conte...-is-denied.pdf

OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA

DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY JUDY,
THOMAS MALAREN, LAURIE ROTH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK OBAMA,

Defendant.

Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE
1215136-60-MALIHI
[The Docket Number has not yet been listed at the State of Georgia Docket.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs: Orly Taitz

Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

On December 15, 2011, Defendant, President Barack Obama, moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs' challenge to his qualifications for office. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the "Georgia Administrative Procedure Act."For the reasons indicated below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 1

1 Because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied, in the interest of efficiency, the Court finds it unnecessary to wait for the Plaintiffs' responses before denying the motion.

I. Discussion

1.

The Georgia Election Code (the "Code") mandates that "[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought." O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

2.

Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

3.

The Georgia law governing presidential preference primaries mandates that "[o]n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot." O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama's name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential candidate's qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011.

4.

In the instant motion, Defendant contends that Georgia law does not give Plaintiffs authority to challenge a political party's nominee for president in a presidential preference primary because Code Section 21-2-5 does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

5.

Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the "first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language." Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008 ). "Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous,judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning." Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other "natural and reasonable construction" of the statutory language, this Court is"not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning."Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).

6.

Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that "every candidate for federal and state office" must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) (emphasis added). Although the word "candidate" is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the presidential preference primary "shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot." O.C.G.A. 21-2-193 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office.

7.

Code Sections 21-2-190 to 21-2-200 set out the procedures of the presidential preference primary and also provide no exception to the Section 21-2-5 qualification requirement. This Court finds no basis under Georgia law why the qualification requirements in Section 21-2-5 would not apply to a candidate for the office of the president in the presidential preference primary.

8.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

II. Decision

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of January, 2012.

(signed)
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

The NH AG Has Been Served
NH state Representatives Laurence Rappaport, Carol Vita and Lucien Vita, and taxpayer Mark Rossetti, et al, deliver an affidavit to the NH Attorney General's office regarding ongoing allegations of election fraud, followed by a press conference, 1/3/2012.


http://bikerbillnh.blogspot.com/2012...en-served.html

Originally Posted by New Hampshire State Representative Larry Rappoport

My name is Larry Rappoport. I'm a State Representative of New Hampshire. With me are Carol Vita and her husband Lucien.

We're here on the Obama matter, and we're here to serve the Attorney General with a signed affidavit, notarized affidavit which states that back in 2009, we met with him to protest the eligibility of Barack Obama and ask him to investigate.

At that time, he said he considered it a federal matter, and he refused to investigate.

This affidavit just simply states that fact.

Serving the N.H. AG with the affidavit is a good thing, but it does not appear in any wise to require him to act. I don't understand what it might accomplish.

It does cover these Representatives in case of being sued for negligence or dereliction of duty to support and defend the Constitution.

Originally Posted by New Hampshire State Representative Larry Rappoport

Well, we believe that the Secretary of State [of N.H.] should launch an investigation, and if it turns out that Mr. Obama is not qualified to hold the position, then he be denied a place on the ballot.

Happier New Year, Obama Ballot Challengers!
35Share 0digg

OVER HALF OF STATES FILED OR WILL FILE CHALLENGES THUS FAR

by Capt. Pamela Barnett (Ret.), blogging at Obama Ballot Challenge

(Jan. 5, 2012) — Those at the Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 hope and pray for a Constitutional President that loves America and the Constitution in this coming year. To help ensure that the nation’s first known usurper Obama does not illegally get in the White House another 4 years, citizens have taken action where their pitiful and treasonous leaders in Congress and the Department of Justice have not.

OSBC has received credible commitments to challenge Obama on the ballot in over half the states thus far, and that was only within two months of the of the inception of the first Obama ballot challenge filed in New Hampshire which we were a part of through our director, Captain Pamela Barnett, USA Retired. Our stated goal is to encourage and assist Obama ballot challenges in all 50 states and we intend to meet that goal.

OSBC has decentralized operations and backs up the website daily to ensure that OSBC will always be available as a tool for justice to help end the usurpation of the White House.

To those new to OSBC that wonder why Obama is a usurper and an illegal President please visit the Minor v. Happersett and Natural Born Citizenship pages. Obama was born British through his Kenyan national father which makes him a non- NATURAL Born Citizen as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. OSBC does not care so much about where he was born because we already know Obama is not qualified to be POTUS by his own admissions of a foreign father and being born with foreign citizenship. Obama may be a “born” citizen under the 14th Amendment, but he is NOT “NATURAL BORN”.

Please hang in there with us on this bumpy and trying road to justice for our White House. Also, share our website with all of your contacts, file an Obama ballot challenge and/or volunteer to help this fast growing citizen movement to help save our country and our Constitution. Volunteers needed now in New Hampshire and other states.

More detailed updates and strategies to come in the near future at OSBC.

Sincerely, the Director, CPT Pamela Barnett, USA Retired

© 2012, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.



http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/...t-challengers/

The tremor in Obama attorney Michael Jablonski's voice is indeed encouraging.

I responded to another post about Mr. Obama calling laws "regulations" and changing the laws by executive fiat.

There will be no end of such "Obama Laws" until the Terrorist-in-Chief is ousted from the Office of President.

http://www.alipac.us/threads/129743-...tioned/page475

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-conte...der-Farrar.pdf

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/...t-challengers/

Don't count on the 2012 elections to replace him. The elections, if not suspended by martial law because of riots and chaos, will be corrupted twenty ways from Sunday. And who can be expected to defraud the elections more than an Alinsky disciple?

[Joseph Stalin said,] "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how."

Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary, by Boris Bazhanov (1992)