Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by At forums.hannity.com, ksdb

Even though the de facto officer doctrine has never been declared as applicable to a putative president, I have a feeling that if push came to shove, any (or at least most) actions under Barry Soetoro would be upheld as valid, only because it's too impractical and costly to invalidate those actions.

If that doctrine were challenged, the bills which Mr. Obama signed under color of law could be quickly signed again by Pres. pro-tempore Joe Biden... unless Mr. Biden would also be ousted as joined-at-the-hip with Mr. Obama, which is too much to hope for, IMO. In that case, Rep. John Boehner would become President, unless it happened before Jan. 3, 2011, in which case Rep. Nancy Pelosi would become President.

There is a rumbling about the Democrats declaring Mr. Obama to be unfit for office or legally incompetent, in order to remove him from office before Jan. 3rd, thus avoiding the risk of losing the Presidency to Rep. Boehner.

The following explanation is not decided case law, but only a law review contributor's opinion.

Originally Posted by In the Columbia Law Review, Kathryn A. Clokey

NOTE: THE DE FACTO OFFICER DOCTRINE: THE CASE FOR CONTINUED APPLICATION.

JUNE, 1985
85 Colum. L. Rev. 1121
Author
Kathryn A. Clokey
Excerpt
INTRODUCTION

An official must satisfy detailed statutory and constitutional requirements before he can claim lawful authority to exercise governmental functions. These requirements may include specific appointment and election procedures, an oath of office, and the posting of a bond. If every exercise of official authority required perfect title to office, government would be substantially impeded in its efforts to take final and effective actions.

• 1 Uncertainty would permeate very official action -- from the finding of a tax deficiency to the conviction of a criminal.
  2 The public could not rely on an official act unless it were taken by someone who had already conclusively established his claim to office. The de facto officer doctrine prevents such uncertainty by precluding challenges to official actions on the ground of defective title in the acting official.
  3 While courts have always recognized certain exceptions to the doctrine,
  4 a recent District of Columbia Circuit decision threatens its continued application.
  5 Andrade v. Lauer
  6 enunciates a broad test for allowing a collateral title challenge to proceed which could significantly undermine the utility of the de facto officer doctrine.

In response to Andrade, this Note justifies the de facto doctrine as consistent with contemporary standing considerations. The Note argues, however, that application of the doctrine is inappropriate where the transgressed title requirement directly protects the individuals who are adversely affected by the official's actions.

(continued)

[The following explanation distinguishes a usurper from a de facto officer.
It was written by an amateur, has no legal authority, and applies only to Texas.]

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/19653902/10-Nov-05-DefactoOfficerDoctrine-by-Valient-Liberty-Complete

VALIANT LIBERTY[/url]]There are three types of public officers, de jure, de facto, and usurpers. A de jure officer is one who one who has been in total compliance with all requirements of law and holds title to the office by right. See Black’s Law Dict., 6th ed. Texas law recognizes a distinction between holding an office by title and holding it by sufferance. Bickford v. Cocke, 54 Tex. 482 (1881) and see: Tom v. Klepper, 172 SW 721 (1915). A de facto officer is one who, while in actual possession of the office, is not holding such in a manner prescribed by law. See: Black’s 6th. A de facto officer’s authority cannot be collaterally challenged and his acts generally have the same force and effect as a de jure officer. An usurper of a public office is one who either intrudes into a vacant office or ousts the incumbent without any color of title, or is one who is attempting to fill a pretended office not created by law. See: Black’s 6th and Norton v. Shelby Co, infra. A good definition of a de facto officer is found in Texas Jurisprudence 3d, Vol. 60, Sec. 344, at page 583:

A public official becomes an officer de facto by exercising his or her duties:
(1) without a known appointment or election, but under circumstances of reputation or acquiescence that were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his or her action supposing him or her to be the officer he or she assumed to be.
(2) under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer fails to conform to some precedent, requirement, or condition, as to take and oath, give a bond, or the like:
(3) under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, the ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public; or
(4) under color of an election or an appointment by, or pursuant to, a public unconstitutional law, before the law is so adjudged.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19653902/1...berty-Complete

Originally Posted by Maelstrom

Looks like an impostor who has achieved public office must be obeyed.

IMO, not after the impostor is legally judged to be an impostor. IMO, he then would no longer be even a de facto officer. IMO.

There is a rumbling about the Democrats declaring Mr. Obama to be unfit for office or legally incompetent, in order
to remove him from office before Jan. 3rd, thus avoiding the risk of losing the Presidency to Rep. John Boehner.

Originally Posted by At forums.hannity.com, Roberts_the_Man

O'Reilly cites an unnamed source that states that even Soros being quoted in a secretive meeting as saying even he is ready to give Barry the boot if he doesn't produce results and reload with the next puppet .....

This is predicated over the recent mid-term election loss and based on his temptation to go centrist like Clinton did after 1994 to the chagrin of the whacked out leftist like Michael Moore and others ........


Q- Soros the non-nation/tribal and open border advocate that ironically supports a guy who has ties to radical Blacks who want to set up a radical Black nation devoid of Whites here complete with a lack of NBC status whilst he controls the sources that could turn public opinion against his own candidate he supported earlier if he didn't get all that Soros wanted done whilst in office with the power to get it done ..... So Soros could potentially reload the next Marxist dweeb to take his place already in place ....

He supported McCain in 2000 whilst also supporting Gore.

The guy historically has had feet on both sides of the aisle ......

I read an interview where he admitted he tried to get to H Bush
to infer he wanted to have a man on the inside of the WH back then.
Maybe he has had the trap door ready to dump Barry for just such a contingency all along if things didn't go as planned ?

So who knows where his next flunky could come from ?

He supported Shillary once before .......

Why not again ?

She has the " I told you so " factor on her side ?

Or he could resurrect one of his other past flunkies or even an unknown like Barry to fit the bill of puppet in the WH.

Obama has stopped trying. It's official, check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/20/obama.tsa/

One term president. He's cool with that.

Here's a repost from 2008, just as a reminder. See the original web page for links to the hospitals.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog

EarthFrisk Blog[/url]]Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama: You Were Not Born Here!

By admin on Dec 2, 2008 in Blogging, Offbeat, Politics, Social Media

UPDATE February 2009 Click Here [a good read!]

Supposed Conspiracy Claim Turns REAL on Obama

It is becoming painfully obvious that we may very well have a criminal President in 2009. No this isn’t a joke. What I speak of is the curious developments in the supposedly racist, biased, dumb, as well as insane case of where Obama was born. Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

A strange development indeed is how it is that every time Barack Obama or a family member tells of where Obama was born, they seem to have no idea as of December 2008.

They seemed to know what hospital quite a few times months ago when it was claimed that Obama’s mother gave birth to him at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu – Obama and Mom Never Here

The Queen’s Medical Center
1301 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813 Link to Site
Phone number 808-538-9011 General Medical Records 808-547-4361.

After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there, his sister was in an interview (Mary) and claimed that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children –
Obama and Mom Never Here
1319 Punahou Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96826
(80 535-7000 Link to site

Hospital after Hospital – all Have No Record of Obama being born or Mom Ever being There.

Hospital after hospital in Honolulu all have NO RECORD of Obama or mother ever being there. Is this some state secret? Are we to believe that even the hospital that he was born in should remain secret? Why lie to us as if it matters I mean the man did win the Presidential vote? Why the lies and secrecy?

We already know that Obama’s family and the entire nation of Kenya (which is about to have a national holiday for Obama) know that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Kenya [Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa]. The government of Kenya has sealed these records. More and more secrecy due to the fact that once proven, Obama will not be constitutionally allowed to become President of the United States!

All of these were called or visited from November 20 –
December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA was not born
in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE AS A FACT!
Hospital employees were bribed, some gave info for free.

Hospitals you can check yourself (Hint on the process: Most of the following Hospitals didn’t exist in Honolulu County at time of Obama’s birth so this was an academic exercise) The main two hospitals claimed that definitely existed are above and both have no record of Obama or Mother Ann in either of them.

• The Queen’s Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital
  
  Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
  
  Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
  Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
  Hawaii Health Systems Corporation – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
  Cancer Institute of Maui – Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???
  
  Kuakini Hospital – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
  Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
  St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii – Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
  Straub Heatlh – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
  Tripler Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
  Wahiawa General Hospital – Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
  
  Wilcox Memorial Hospital – Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

We were pretty detailed in our calls and visits thanks to dozens of native Hawaiian patriots! To the College Republicans all over the Island kudos!. You can look at every hospital here and call or visit any of them. Everyone has a family member working in a hospital. Talk, pay and bribe. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.

I didn't think hospitals were required to keep records going that far back. I thought they only went for 7 years or something, and at a birth or a death they turned the information over to the vital statics branch of the local government and that is all that they really needed to do, legally. An interesting exercise might be to see if the Army hospital at Fort Belvoir has any record of me being born there.

But to me, the wheels are coming off this administration quickly. He's let slip too many times that he really doesn't care about the majority of the people in this country. He's in a no-win situation and is smart enough to know it. Look for him to formulate a plan to cut his losses and move on.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

I didn't think hospitals were required to keep records going that far back. I thought they only went for 7 years or something, and at a birth or a death they turned the information over to the vital statics branch of the local government and that is all that they really needed to do, legally. An interesting exercise might be to see if the Army hospital at Fort Belvoir has any record of me being born there.

But to me, the wheels are coming off this administration quickly. He's let slip too many times that he really doesn't care about the majority of the people in this country. He's in a no-win situation and is smart enough to know it. Look for him to formulate a plan to cut his losses and move on.

,

Yes, Betsy, the wheels are coming off for not only the Obama administration but the Democratic party. The question is, who is going to cry uncle first? The smart money is on the Dems to throw momma from the train. They have the most to lose and the money behind them sees the writing on the wall. The midterms were an earth shaking wake-up call to the Dems that "time's up". You can no longer shore up this house of cards with a phony "president" as the foundation. They will do a lot of political maneuvering to re-position themselves for the 2012 election and they recognize that Obama has become a serious liability. My money says that, at best, he will be forced to resign in some Nixon-esque manner. At worst it will be done in an ugly way in an attempt by the Democrats to show that they "woke up" to this political travesty that visited them in the dark of night in the 2009 election and are cleaning house. Oh, and by the way, Pelosi and those responsible for this poison pill will get their comeuppance one way or another. But then, that's only me.

[quote="HighlanderJuan"

I think I am arguing for a strategic strike at the central communist regime in power, not a blow-back reaction to corruption. We have to fix this kind of communist/usurper takeover problem forever.[/quote]

Highlander, I am in agreement with you here. It will be very telling if the newly enshrined Republicans have the intestinal fortitude to turn things upside down. I look for a more subtle, behind the scenes evisceration of those responsible for this.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

I didn't think hospitals were required to keep records going that far back. I thought they only went for 7 years or something, and at a birth or a death they turned the information over to the vital statistics branch of the local government and that is all that they really needed to do, legally.

Patient billing (financial) records may be purged after 7 years. Even after a hospital purged the billing detail record of charges for each suture and band-aid, it would keep a billing summary record for each visit for much longer. A hospital must notify the Bureau of Vital Statistics (or Vital Records) of the state Dept. of Health about a birth or death within X days of the occurrence, but that is no indicator of how long a hospital would keep patient records.

Even if hospitals eventually discard patient medical records and billing records, they keep, with rare exceptions, every admission/discharge/transfer or ADT record indefinitely on computer databases. Normally, any ADT record for a specific patient visit would be in the main hard disk database rather than only on CD or tape backup, because billing, as well as doctors and nurses, must know the patient's history of prior visits and the brief discharge diagnosis for each visit. Besides, ADT records are basically one-line records that, in aggregate, don't occupy a great deal of disk storage.

Yes, it is conceivable that a hospital might purge admission records from online hard disk storage after nearly 50 years. But at 25¢ a gigabyte on hot-swap drives in a RAID-5 array, why would they bother?

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

I didn't think hospitals were required to keep records going that far back. I thought they only went for 7 years or something, and at a birth or a death they turned the information over to the vital statics branch of the local government and that is all that they really needed to do, legally. An interesting exercise might be to see if the Army hospital at Fort Belvoir has any record of me being born there.

But to me, the wheels are coming off this administration quickly. He's let slip too many times that he really doesn't care about the majority of the people in this country. He's in a no-win situation and is smart enough to know it. Look for him to formulate a plan to cut his losses and move on.

,

Yes, Betsy, the wheels are coming off for not only the Obama administration but the Democratic party. The question is, who is going to cry uncle first? The smart money is on the Dems to throw momma from the train. They have the most to lose and the money behind them sees the writing on the wall. The midterms were an earth shaking wake-up call to the Dems that "time's up". You can no longer shore up this house of cards with a phony "president" as the foundation. They will do a lot of political maneuvering to re-position themselves for the 2012 election and they recognize that Obama has become a serious liability. My money says that, at best, he will be forced to resign in some Nixon-esque manner. At worst it will be done in an ugly way in an attempt by the Democrats to show that they "woke up" to this political travesty that visited them in the dark of night in the 2009 election and are cleaning house. Oh, and by the way, Pelosi and those responsible for this poison pill will get their comeuppance one way or another. But then, that's only me.

My suspicion is that somehow it will slip out that he doesn't plan to seek a second term, a sort of "rolling over" and saying "don't hit me" to gain some peace. However, I worry very much about the use of executive power by someone with a "what the heck, I won't be seeking the electorate's approval anymore anyhow" attitude.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

I didn't think hospitals were required to keep records going that far back. I thought they only went for 7 years or something, and at a birth or a death they turned the information over to the vital statistics branch of the local government and that is all that they really needed to do, legally.

Patient billing (financial) records may be purged after 7 years. Even after a hospital purged the billing detail record of charges for each suture and band-aid, it would keep a billing summary record for each visit for much longer. A hospital must notify the Bureau of Vital Statistics (or Vital Records) of the state Dept. of Health about a birth or death within X days of the occurrence, but that is no indicator of how long a hospital would keep patient records.

Even if hospitals eventually discard patient medical records and billing records, they keep, with rare exceptions, every admission/discharge/transfer or ADT record indefinitely on computer databases. Normally, any ADT record for a specific patient visit would be in the main hard disk database rather than only on CD or tape backup, because billing, as well as doctors and nurses, must know the patient's history of prior visits and the brief discharge diagnosis for each visit. Besides, ADT records are basically one-line records that, in aggregate, don't occupy a great deal of disk storage.

Yes, it is conceivable that a hospital might purge admission records from online hard disk storage after nearly 50 years. But at 25¢ a gigabyte on hot-swap drives in a RAID-5 array, why would they bother?

Minuteman, I don't buy that the "old" records were purged. Don't believe it for a minute. Your point is valid that it doesn't make sense given the capability and the fact that it is much easier to search a digitial database or online records then to try and dig through paper documents.