Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by The U.S. Supreme Court

No. 10-678
Title: Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.

Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010

~~~Date~~ ~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)
Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.
Dec 30 2010 Request for recusal received from petitioner.
Jan 18 2011 Petition DENIED.
Feb 7 2011 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Feb 16 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2011.
Mar 7 2011 Rehearing DENIED.


~~Name~~~~~~ ~~~~~~Address~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
John David Hemenway 4816 Rodman Street, NW (202) 244-4819
Washington, DC 20016
johndhemenway@comcast.net
Party name: Gregory S. Hollister

Attorneys for Respondents:
Marc Erik Elias Perkins Coie, LLP (202)-434-1609
Counsel of Record 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
melias@perkinscoie.com
Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al.

www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm

There is no mention of whether the petition for recusal of Assoc. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan was accepted.

Originally Posted by Bob Unruh for WorldNetDaily

But Monday's notice turning away the case not only did not address the motion to recuse, it also did not include a notation – present in other cases when court members did not participate – on whether Sotomayor and Kagan sounded off on the eligibility of their benefactor.

www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=272641

The "natural born citizen" clause has been effectively annulled, without amendment, by AG Eric Holder, the DOJ, the U.S. Attorneys, and their threats of retaliatory litigation. I think the Constitution and the American people would be better served by focusing on Amendment XIV, § 3, which would get the job done. That strategy abandons a slam dunk prosecution using Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5. However, any argument mentioning nbC is locked out of the courts, and ¶ 5 is de facto null and void.

On the other hand, the usurper has established an indisputable record of fealty to an anti-American ideology, mainly the Marxist/Leninist/Maoist/Ché-Fanon communism into which his mother and her parents indoctrinated him from birth until he left for Occidental College. As a lifelong practicing communist, he is an atheist at heart, but as an infidel dhimmi, he is subjected to Is1am by the sword. His appeal to Christianity is a matter of expediency, a declaration his wife required for political purposes.

Mr. Obama's loyalty to globalist communism and his rendering of submission to Is1amist political ideology, as evidenced by an uninterrupted train of anti-American acts, make him unfit for office according to Amendment XIV, § 3. A two-thirds majority of the Senate will never buy it, but a simple majority of the House very well might. We don't need a conviction, just discovery. Convene a Congressional investigation with subpoena power, and he's done.

May I recommend former Inspector General Gerald Walpin to be the chief investigator. He has demonstrated the courage to go up against City Hall and prevail.

Originally Posted by Mayday

Editorial, 3/7: 'Birther' bill is fringe of the fringe
Posted: Sunday, March 6, 2011 11:59 pm

The "birthers" who insist that President Barack Obama does not meet the citizenship requirement to be president represent a fringe of public opinion.

Then there are some whose views represent only a fringe of the fringe.

That's where the bill proposed by Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial comes from.

The charge that Obama failed to meet the requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" of our great country was dismissed as invalid long ago.

The director of the Hawaiian state agency that handles birth certificates issued the following statement: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen."

Various attempts to challenge Obama's citizenship have failed in court. The U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions has let stand lower court rulings that Obama met the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the president be a "natural born citizen."

Yet the "birthers" keep the myth alive.

What makes Christensen's bill an oddity even by "birther" standards is that not only would it require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide a certified long-form copy of their birth certificates to Nebraska's secretary of state, it also would require candidates to provide copies of their parent's long-form birth certificates.

Furthermore, in order for a person to qualify to be a presidential candidate in Nebraska, the bill, LB654, would require an affidavit in which the candidate swears, "On the day I was born both my birth father and my birth mother were citizens of the United States of America."

Christensen has told reporters that he "absolutely" believes Obama is a U.S. citizen, but it's worth noting that a faction of "birthers" believes that to be a "natural born citizen" a person must be the child of two U.S. citizens. Christensen already had a reputation for introducing peculiar bills. His unsuccessful effort two years ago to regulate sexually oriented businesses provoked more jokes than serious discussion. His proposal this year to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons drew a chorus of opposition from Nebraska educators.

But this time, Christensen has outdone himself. His "birther" bill is one of the most outlandish pieces of legislation that has been introduced this year.

The bill has been scheduled for a public hearing Thursday. It promises to be entertaining. It possibly might attract kooks from all across the country.

But entertainment is the only possible value anyone could find in this 14-page bill. It's a joke. The less time the Legislature wastes on it, the better.

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/edi ... e6fa5.html

Bull crap!

'Birther' bill is fringe of the fringe

So? Write a comment! What an opportunity to impact Obots!



Barack Obama II's party buds

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

'Birther' bill is fringe of the fringe

So? Write a comment! What an opportunity to impact Obots!



Barack Obama II's party buds

Minuteman, it is time consuming to argue with idiots. I am just thankful the left represents, in reality, a minority of American thought. Admittedly they are a loud minority, but they are a minority.

Kind of like trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.
.

Well, there is some deep research going on in Hawaii, and I am not certain what it all means. From the attached link, you can see that someone has gotten into the birth indexes for the years 1960-1964, and it (the index page) has apparently been tampered with (probably no surprise to anyone on Alipac).

Because of the expandable images, I would suggest that we-all read the article at the blog site, rather than transfer the data here.

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.c ... ts-a-date/

.

I remember some time ago we were hoping that Patrick Fitzgerald would investigate the Obama eligibility problem and several of us sent letters to Fitzgerald asking for his assistance.

Well, as this RTR video with Julio Rausseo and Wayne Madsen will show, Fitzgerald is more like Al Capone than he is like Elliot Ness - he's extremely dirty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inn_-YAcVCQ

Note also the fairly extensive commentary on Rahm Emanuel and his criminal activity.

This treatise from 1919 may dispel skepticism that The Law of Nations by Emerich de Vattel was a primary source, if not the primary source, for the U.S. Constitution [where it relates to nationality and loyalty, birthright, inheritance, and citizenship].

Originally Posted by In Transactions of The Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume XX, 1917-1919, Thomas Willing Balch

http://books.google.com/books?id=svE7AA ... utput=text

The Beginnings of International Law in the United States of America,
by Thomas Willing Balch

At the end of the fifteenth century, the Law between Nations, like the Nations between whom that Law was to adjust and regulate their every day relations, was barely beginning to emerge from the hodge-podge welter of customs that prevailed in the every day relations between the feudal potentates, both large and small, who ruled in all central and western Europe. . .

When the present Massachusetts was settled in 1620, the Thirty Years' War in Central Europe, whose close was to mark in a general way the change from feudalism to the present status of nationalism in Europe and also the birth of the Law between Nations, had barely gone on for two years. And it was only five years after the landing at Plymouth of the Pilgrim Fathers, that the universally recognized father of the Law between Nations, Hugo Grotius, gave forth at Paris to the world his treatise, De Jure Belli ac Pacis.

. . . in colonial days several copies of the work were brought over to the colonies. Through the kindness of our fellow-member, Mr. Lane, I have found that Harvard College was the fortunate possessor in colonial times of several copies of Grotius . . .

The works of two others of the founders of the science of the Law between Nations found their way in colonial days into the Harvard College Library. One was Samuel Puffendorf's Law of Nature and Nations. . .

The third work by a master of the Law between Nations that came to Harvard College in the colonial period was that of the Swiss publicist, Emerich de Vattel. It is entitled, Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle. A copy of the English translation of the first French edition of 1758 was published at London in 1760, and was received at Harvard before 1773, while the Leyden edition of 1758 appears in the Catalogue of 1790, and may have been received at any time after 1764. The Library Company of Philadelphia likewise possessed in colonial days a copy of the English translation of 1760. Just as the colonies declared their independence another copy of Vattel was presented to Harvard College. This Harvard copy belongs to the edition of 1775, published at the Hague and edited by Charles Guillaume Frecleric Dumas. In 1775 Dumas, who was employed at the Hague as an agent of the colonists, sent, as we learn from a letter he wrote from the Hague on June 30th to Franklin and now among the Franklin papers in the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, three copies of his new edition of the treatise of the Swiss publicist to Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia, one of them being intended for the Library Company of Philadelphia, a second for Franklin himself, and the third for a library in one of the other colonies. In October of 1775, Franklin gave one copy to the Philadelphia Library Company, which was then housed in Carpenter's Hall; and Franklin tells us that that copy was much used by the members of the First Continental Congress. A second copy he kept for himself. It is not known where that copy now is; possibly it has helped to feed some paper mill. The third copy, in accordance with Dumas's written wish, Franklin sent on in the summer of 1776 to James Bowdoin, afterwards governor of Massachusetts and a member of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, for presentation to the library of Harvard College. Bowdoin gave it to the College Library as a gift from Franklin/but it was really Dumas's gift, and so his name should have been entered as the donor. Franklin's great opinion of Harvard College is shown by the fact that he sent its library the third copy of Vattel. . .

But in the letter to Franklin already mentioned, Dumas says that the ideas expressed in this manuscript commentary are his own. The passage in Dumas's letter concerning his edition of Vattel is as follows:

• [translated from the French]
  "During the past winter a new edition of Vattel's Law of Nations was printed. I could not refuse the request of certain persons to be the editor of it. What is curious about the matter, is that excepting my ideas concerning punishments, that these people know and approve, all the other theses that I support, as well in my notes as in a letter with which I have headed the edition, are exactly the opposite of those that were expected of me; and my history in that respect resembles very much the story of Balaam; it was expected that I would curse tyrants much less odious than those that men bless; and I did the exact cont[r]ary: I doubt that I shall be forgiven, but this does not worry me.
  
  "Here then, sir, are three copies of this Vattel: one for your own library, another for that of Philadelphia, and a third for such other library and colony as you may choose. You will find on a blank sheet, at the beginning of each copy, my idea upon government and royalty. I believe it is new and yet the simplest of all, and the only one that is just and sane. Impracticable, and consequently useless and dangerous to discuss in Europe, I thought that, sowed in America, it would take root there, germinate and fructify some day."

Dumas's manuscript commentary has disappeared from the copy in the Library Company of Philadelphia, for when that copy was rebound a long time since, another and more modern kind of paper than that upon which the book is printed was used for the fly leaves. Franklin's own Vattel has vanished. So only the manuscript note written into the Harvard Vattel apparently remains.

The French manuscript note in the Harvard copy is preceded by a caption written possibly either by Franklin or by Bowdoin in English, "A note of the Editor." The commentary is as follows:

• [translated from the French]
  "There are generous and broad-minded peoples, whose merits will make them in due time completely independent and self-governing States. 'My dear friends (some wise man will then say to them), you cannot do better than adopt the English Constitution as your own, with one little alteration which, in my opinion, might bring even nearer perfection this balanced and delightfully moderate form of government. This alteration is to make neither royalty, nor nobility, nor legislative office hereditary. It is quite possible to inherit as little skill in the art of governing men, as in that of curing their diseases, or of teaching them to think, to sing, or to dance. . . The eldest fathers of your land-holding families are the only kings, if you need any, the only legislators, the only possessors of signorial rights (seniores) worthy of you. You will call them from the plough; they will leave their sons there; and the mere fact of their age will win fo[r] these sons the respect and reverence of your grandchildren and of your great-grandchildren, together with the acknowledged right when they become literally the elders of the nation, to control it in their turn.'"

. . . It is practically certain that that note of Dumas's was read not merely by Franklin and Bowdoin, but also by some other men who, like Franklin, sat in the Federal Convention. . .

That copy of Vattel, in conjunction with the one in Philadelphia, has an especial interest for the student of International Law. For those three books, which arrived here in the early stages of the struggle between the colonies and the mother land, not merely influenced the men who sat in the Continental Congresses in shaping our policy towards Great Britain, but also undoubtedly influenced the framers of the Federal Constitution in the writing of parts of that state document. By the Constitution of the United States the Law of Nations [not underlined, meaning not de Vattel's book, but the total body of International Law - ED.] is expressly recognized as being a part of the Law of the land. And if we remember that Vattel's treatise was recognized in all the Foreign Offices of Europe at that time as the leading authority of the day upon questions of International Law, it may be said that in an actual sense Dumas, as the purveyor of knowledge to the statesmen of the United States of America concerning the Law of Nations, was in a sense the sponsor of the Law of Nations among us. And as that treatise was written by a citizen of Switzerland, a country which up to that time had done more than any other to develop the Law of Neutrality, and as Vattel himself had stated the conception of neutrality probably with more clearness than any publicist up to the time he wrote, it was eminently fitting that the young member of the family of Nations, the United States of America, should help to expand the Law of Neutrality. And, much more than any other Nation, our country has shaped the expansion of the Law of Neutrality. In sending us three copies of the treatise of Vattel, Dumas, as well as the publicist of Neuchatel, helped to influence our course in the early years of the Republic under Washington and Jefferson, and even afterwards, in moulding the expansion of the Law between Nations.

Mar 10, 7:16 PM EST


Nebraska presidential birth certificate bill dies

By GRANT SCHULTE
Associated Press

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- A Nebraska bill introduced in response to a flap over President Barack Obama's citizenship and requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship with a birth certificate won't get out of committee, the panel's chairman said Thursday.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, didn't appear in person before the Legislature's Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee but said in written testimony that he didn't want his proposal to be perceived as a political attack on the president. An aide said the bill was strictly intended to guarantee that presidential candidates are confirmed as eligible for office.

"He doesn't want this to be a sideshow," said Dan Wiles, the aide who read the senator's testimony to the panel. "He wants to know if we can craft some kind of process to give people the security that we've done our job" of verifying candidates.

People known as "birthers" have contended since 2008 that Obama is ineligible to serve as president. They say he actually was born in Kenya, his father's homeland, and they have questioned the digital "Certificate of Live Birth" Obama has released.

Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship and attempts to challenge his eligibility to serve as president in court have failed. But the issue has persisted among birthers, and Nebraska is one of 10 states that have considered measures to require more proof that presidential candidates are U.S. citizens.

State Sen. Bill Avery, who chairs the committee, said the Nebraska bill, LB654, would die there.

It would have required presidential candidates to provide state officials with a sworn statement and a certified copy of their U.S. birth certificate to appear on the state's election ballot. The Nebraska Secretary of State would confirm each candidate's eligibility.

One supporter, Nellie Ristvedt, of Crete, said the legislation would likely trigger a federal lawsuit that she hoped would rise to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This isn't about any one person," Ristvedt said. "It's about the constitution being followed. It's about the rule of law, and that is my only concern."

Several lawmakers on the panel questioned the bill's purpose, and noted that federal appellate courts might simply refuse to hear the case after lower courts ruled.

The proposal would "be obligating us to a court challenge, where we'd have to spend thousands of dollars," said state Sen. Scott Price of Bellevue. "You want the state to have to defend this, with the hope that the Supreme Court might make a ruling."

The other states that have considered legislation are Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Connecticut, Indiana, Tennessee and Maine. A measure proposed in Maine failed.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/ ... TE=DEFAULT

Originally Posted by Mayday

Mar 10, 7:16 PM EST


Nebraska presidential birth certificate bill dies

By GRANT SCHULTE
Associated Press

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- A Nebraska bill introduced in response to a flap over President Barack Obama's citizenship and requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship with a birth certificate won't get out of committee, the panel's chairman said Thursday.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, didn't appear in person before the Legislature's Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee but said in written testimony that he didn't want his proposal to be perceived as a political attack on the president. An aide said the bill was strictly intended to guarantee that presidential candidates are confirmed as eligible for office.

"He doesn't want this to be a sideshow," said Dan Wiles, the aide who read the senator's testimony to the panel. "He wants to know if we can craft some kind of process to give people the security that we've done our job" of verifying candidates.

People known as "birthers" have contended since 2008 that Obama is ineligible to serve as president. They say he actually was born in Kenya, his father's homeland, and they have questioned the digital "Certificate of Live Birth" Obama has released.

Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship and attempts to challenge his eligibility to serve as president in court have failed. But the issue has persisted among birthers, and Nebraska is one of 10 states that have considered measures to require more proof that presidential candidates are U.S. citizens.

State Sen. Bill Avery, who chairs the committee, said the Nebraska bill, LB654, would die there.

It would have required presidential candidates to provide state officials with a sworn statement and a certified copy of their U.S. birth certificate to appear on the state's election ballot. The Nebraska Secretary of State would confirm each candidate's eligibility.

One supporter, Nellie Ristvedt, of Crete, said the legislation would likely trigger a federal lawsuit that she hoped would rise to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This isn't about any one person," Ristvedt said. "It's about the constitution being followed. It's about the rule of law, and that is my only concern."

Several lawmakers on the panel questioned the bill's purpose, and noted that federal appellate courts might simply refuse to hear the case after lower courts ruled.

The proposal would "be obligating us to a court challenge, where we'd have to spend thousands of dollars," said state Sen. Scott Price of Bellevue. "You want the state to have to defend this, with the hope that the Supreme Court might make a ruling."

The other states that have considered legislation are Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Connecticut, Indiana, Tennessee and Maine. A measure proposed in Maine failed.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/ ... TE=DEFAULT

Let's see if this story is written up by someone else besides AP whose pro-Obama spin makes it untrustworthy.