Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Judge Malihi told Atty. Orly Taitz that he is expediting
consideration of this case so as to present his decision
to the Georgia Sec. of State, Brian Kemp, by Feb. 1st.

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case
Posted on January 30, 2012 by Cowboy Byte

Last week, I noted that Obama turned his back not just on Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer, but also on the laws of the State of Georgia. I closed my column, “Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks on By,” with the observation: “And most of the media has followed along right behind him.”

At the time, I had just witnessed an historic hearing that actually discussed the eligibility of the sitting president of the United States to run for a second term. The president had been subpoenaed to appear, and instead of his attorney respectfully following protocol to have that subpoena recalled, both Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, simply failed to show up at all or offer any defense whatsoever.

Isn’t there a headline in there somewhere?

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case | CowboyByte



Anyone notice this I have I have been waiting "But I see nut'ing"

Mr. Obama is a man of lawlessness. He considers himself above the law and sees no reason to comply with the law. But I don’t know why his attorney no-showed.

1) The no-show may have been to quash a media photo op. Whoever said, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity,” never considered the photo gallery on the Post Office wall. A video or even just a photograph of Michael Jablonski defending the Conman-in-Chief before Judge Michael Malihi would have been worth any ten news accounts.

2) The no-show may have been an intentional disrespecting of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH) and Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Malihi. To appear would have been to dignify the charges and to acknowledge and consent to Judge Malihi’s authority to render a judgment; to fail to appear was to undercut the judge’s authority and make him look small and weak. Nothing could be farther from the truth; Judge Michael M. Malihi is now the first judge anywhere to stare down the dictator and not blink.

3) The no-show limits the damages to one count of failure to appear. Had Mr. Jablonski appeared in court, he might have been arrested and jailed for doing something unprofessional, illegal, or perjurious. He would have been constantly sniffing the air for the stench of tar.

4) The no-show enables the OC to continue to pretend that the trial didn’t happen. Without the defendant or his attorney present, a casual observer might imagine that this was no more than a birther demonstration staged in a courtroom.

5) To ignore the OSAH trial is to ignore its consequences for as long as possible. If it is kept under wraps until the Presidential election is past, Georgia’s 15 electoral votes going to Ron/Rick/Newt/Mitt will make Mr. Obama’s absence from the ballot a moot point.

6) Keeping Mr. Obama’s removal from the Georgia ballot out of the public eye minimizes the momentum it carries into removing him from the ballot in other states.

All of the above are just conjectures. I have no idea what motivated Mr. Obama and Mr. Jablonski to blow off a state judge’s subpoena. Such a slap in the face constitutes a challenge to a duel in some quarters in Georgia, and both parties have access to some pretty heavy “artillery” beyond just dueling pistols.

But I now see that the Obama Campaign planned to fail to appear at any hearing where the usurper would be called to account. I did not expect that, and I think that others were blindsided by that tactic. Was it even mentioned in Rules for Radicals?

The Alinsky playbook calls for inciting race riots, illegal alien demonstrations, class warfare and OWS-type civil disruptions in order to justify declaring martial law and suspending the Nov. 6th Presidential election.

So do not count on there being free, fair, and honest elections on Nov. 6th. Mr. Obama and the Obama Campaign know how unpopular he is, even with a $1.2 trillion raise to the debt ceiling with which to create jobs to buy votes. They also do not plan to surrender peacefully the authority for which the left has been working since 1920, at least.

'Green light' to see Obama's Hawaii files

'When somebody submits a copy … the other party has a right to examine the original'

Published: 5 hours ago (12 am Feb. 1, 2012)
By Bob Unruh for WorldNetDaily

An attorney who presented evidence to a Georgia judge last week on Barack Obama’s eligibility for the state’s 2012 presidential ballot believes she now has a right to demand to see his original Hawaii documents.

Obama last April released what he said was a copy of his original Hawaii birth documentation, but a number of imaging, document and computer experts contend it is a fraud.

The original birth documentation could undermine Obama’s claim to be a “natural-born citizen,” as the Constitution requires. Many of his critics, however, say the birth documentation doesn’t matter, because Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen. The Founders likely understood “natural-born citizen” to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Now California attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought a number of major legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility in various courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court, has told WND that when Obama and his lawyer wrote a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp last week refusing to attend the hearing on Obama’s eligibility status, they included a copy of the image that the White House released last April.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?

They also sent a copy to the court of Judge Michael Malihi, the hearing officer, whose ruling is expected to be made available in the next few days [today?].

That act, Taitz explained, effectively gave the court a copy of the White House documentation, and under ordinary rules of evidence the opposing side is supposed to have access to the original to verify the authenticity of the purported copy.

“They submitted a copy and said this is a copy of the original birth certificate. Now the other party has a right to examine the original,” she said.

Her next step was to ask Malihi for a letter to the courts in Hawaii seeking a subpoena for the records. When the judge responded that the issue probably was outside his jurisdiction as an administrative law judge, she received permission to take her request to the Fulton County Superior Court.

An email Taitz posted online showed the court in Georgia carried permission from Malihi to “feel free to petition the Superior Court, if you so choose.”

(Continued at http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/green-light-to-see-obamas-hawaii-files/ )

Soon we shall see, perhaps today, whether ordinary rules of evidence verification apply to Mr. Obama's counterfeit certificate.

A State Secretary of State usually does not have the authority to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President of the United States when such individual has been properly nominated by a political party. State law usually assigns the Sec. of State the duty of examining and validating presidential electors, not of examining and validating presidential candidates.

The political parties’ candidates for President of the United States are typically elected through a political party’s convention. Therefore, any concerns one may have regarding the qualifications of Mr. Obama to remain on a State Election ballot as a candidate for President of the United States should be directed to the State Democratic Party (or possibly the National Democratic Party).

The state electors only come into play after the GENERAL ELECTION votes are tallied.

Before the State Democratic Primary is the time to challenge Mr. Obama about being on the individual State Democratic PRIMARY ballot. After the primary elections, concerns or lawsuits should be directed to the State (or National) Democratic Party.

By law, Georgia requires of the challenged candidate the sole burden of proof that he is eligible to be on the ballot. Many states do not.

Point of View is a two-hour, issues-oriented live talk radio program heard daily nationwide. Kerby Anderson and the Point of View team cover the full spectrum of issues and current events that affect our faith, family, government, education, and basic freedoms from a Christian perspective.

Joseph Farah was the guest for the first hour of today's national broadcast of "Point of View." He talked about the Georgia ballot trials and explained that they were not directed at Mr. Obama's ineligibility for office so much as at Mr. Obama's ineligibility for the Georgia ballot, an issue which is under Georgia control. He mentioned that Sen. Marco Rubio is also ineligible to run for Vice-President, but scoffed at the possibility that all legislation signed by Mr. Obama would be repealed. [He assumed that Mr. Biden would remain in office, and that, in the event of legal incapacity of Mr. Obama to perform the duties of the President, past legislation would only need to be signed again by a then-President Biden.]

Joseph Farah made a point that this crisis is not just about Mr. Obama, or even mainly about Mr. Obama. The crisis is whether we are to be governed by the Constitution. He said that if we are not governed by the Constitution concerning who can be President, then it becomes questionable what is still under actual authority of the Constitution.

The interview with Joseph Farah is available online here.

When Judge Malihi announces his recommendation to the
Georgia Sec. of State about removing Barack Obama from
the Georgia presidential ballot, this link will relay his decision.

... the Indiana Court concluded that

persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."

916 N.E.2d at 688. The Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth. 6

For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly,

CONCLUSION

President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

SO ORDERED, February 3rd, 2012.

MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge


6 This Court recognizes that the Wong Kim Ark case was not deciding the meaning of "natural born citizen" for the purposes of determining presidential qualifications; however, this Court finds the Indiana Court's analysis and reliance on these cases to be persuasive.

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFile...e-2.3.2012.pdf

"The mystery of iniquity is already at work." - 2 Thessalonians 2:7

There is no explaining this, so don't try.

Originally Posted by SlamDunk at orlytaitzesq.com

Now that Malihi has shown he can be gotten to,
it establishes Orly’s pro hac vice right to sue in GA!!

As an attorney licensed in California, she already filed this suit
pro hac vice in Georgia, so how does this ruling advance that right?

[I have corrected many typos and rephrased some awkward grammar. - Ed.]

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ.
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Ste. 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Ph 949-683-5411 F949-766-7603
Orly.Taitz@gmail.com
CA Bar License 223433
Pro Hac Vice GA
Attorney For Plaintiffs

OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA

DAVID FARRAR, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
LEAH LAX, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
CODY ROBERT JUDY,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : DOCKET #: OSAH-SECSTATE-.
THOMAS MacLAREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : CE-1215136-60-MALIHI
LAURIE ROTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
BARACK OBAMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
__________________________________:

Introduction

Barack Obama, defendant herein, (hereinafter, “Obama”) is a candidate in the state of Georgia for the Office of U.S. President in the 2012 Presidential elections. He was submitted as a presidential candidate by the Executive Committee of the Democrat Party of Georgia.

Plaintiffs filed a challenge with the Office of the Secretary of State of Georgia, stating that the candidate is not eligible, because he is not a natural born citizen. This current challenge was forwarded by the Secretary of State to the Administrative Court of the State of Georgia for adjudication. This case was assigned to Honorable Michael Malihi, Deputy Chief Judge.

During the trial, held on January 26, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted witness testimony and exhibits showing the defendant not to be a natural born citizen. Defendant and his attorney did not appear and did not provide any evidence of eligibility. The parties were ordered by the court to submit by 5 pm on February 5, 2012, a brief of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, not exceeding 25 pages. On January 27, 2012, the court changed the submission date from February 5 to February 1. Plaintiffs are submitting attached Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law by the new deadline of 5:00 pm, February 1, 2012. Plaintiffs attest that the length of the brief does not exceed the allotted 25 page limit.

The current brief is a result of three and a half years of investigation into the factual and legal background of the Defendant. Due to page limitation, not all of the facts can be included. Due to the fact that there are two other challenges to eligibility of the same defendant, limited to one issue - the fact that the Defendant's father was not a US citizen - Plaintiffs in Farrar believe that the court will be fully briefed on this one issue. As a result, Plaintiffs will somewhat limit the discussion of that issue in this brief and will allocate a larger part of the allowed 25 pages to issues of elections fraud, evidence of forgery in the defendant's copy of his alleged birth certificate released to the public, Social Security fraud, and use of multiple last names, as those issues are not covered in the concurrently submitted cases of Welden and Swensson.

Plaintiffs assert that based on law and fact, Obama is not eligible to be on the ballot in the state of Georgia as a Presidential candidate, and such finding should be forwarded to the Georgia Secretary of State. Plaintiffs seek their attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs also assert that evidence of criminality as well as contempt of court and rule of law exhibited by the defendant, Obama, is so egregious that it warrants forwarding of the evidence and findings of this court to the Attorney General of Georgia for criminal prosecution of Obama for elections fraud, uttering of forged and altered documents, obstruction of justice, and Social Security fraud.

Additionally, the evidence submitted to this court warrants forwarding to the immigration and deportation services of the Department of Homeland Security for criminal prosecution, as well as to the U.S. Congress for impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by Defendant, Obama.

Furthermore, Defendant and his attorney should be held in contempt of court and properly sanctioned for failure to comply with the subpoena duly issued and served on the defendant by the Plaintiffs' counsel, Orly Taitz. Aforementioned subpoena was found to be valid when this court denied Defendant's motion to quash the subpoena, and Defendant was obligated to appear in court and provide certified copies of his identification records. Obama and his attorney, member of the Georgia bar Michael Jablonski, are in contempt of court, as they failed to appear and did not produce any documents attesting to Obama's eligibility.

ARGUMENT

Case at hand is brought based on O.C.G.A. §21-2-5(a) and (b), O.C.G.A. §21-2-193. O.C.G.A. §21-2-5 states, "Every candidate for federal and state office ... shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought."

The case of Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000), established that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove his or her eligibility. This holding relied upon O'Brien v Gross, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-MALIHI, at 12 (2008 ): "The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office" (id).

Defendant defaulted by not showing up for trial. Administrative Rule of Procedure 616-1-2-30(1) reads: "A default order may be entered against a party that fails to participate in any stage of the proceedings, a party that fails to file any required pleading, or a party that fails to comply with an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge."

616-1-2-30(2) reads: "After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary, to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine all issues in the proceedings, including those affecting the party in default."

This is a case of national importance with repercussions upon forty-nine other states. Considering the importance of Presidential elections, and in the interest of judicial economy, it is warranted to decide this case on the merits of law and fact, which are fully discussed below.

This court already established Plaintiffs' right to proceed with this election challenge, when Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied. Plaintiff Farrar testified to being a registered voter in the state of Georgia. As such, he was an elector, who was eligible to bring the election challenge at hand.

What is the eligibility requirement for the U.S. President?

It is stated in the US Constitution, Article 2, section 1, clause 5, which states, in part, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

So, based on the Constitution, we have two options:

1. a U.S. citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted, or
2. a natural born citizen of the United States.

Of course, the first provision was written into the Constitution in order to grandfather in the first Presidents, who obviously were born before the creation of the United States of America and were required to be only "citizens" at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The second part relates to all other Presidents, who were born after the adoption of the Constitution. This means that the defendant now needs to be a "natural born Citizen." The Constitution does not provide a definition of what a natural born citizen is. Such definition needs to be drawn from multiple external sources, available at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Just as in the recent case, U.S. v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008 ), where the courts had to deduce the meaning of the Second Amendment right to bear arms from the framers' intent, the case at hand requires such reconstruction of the framers' intent. To this extent, this is a case of first impression, as no court ever ruled directly on the point of the meaning of "natural born Citizen" as it applies to the U.S. President. The closest the courts came to the determination of natural born citizen was a precedent from Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 163 (1875).

MINOR V HAPPERSETT

Minor states: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts...” (id). It is common knowledge and described at length in Defendant Obama's Memoirs, such as Dreams From My Father, that Obama's father was a foreigner. Obama, Senior, was a foreign exchange student who resided in the U.S. for a couple of years while he got his education, after which he returned to his native Kenya. He came from [Nyangoma-Kogelo (village) in Siaya District, Nyanza Province, near Kisumu in the Lake Victoria region of western Kenya], and he was a "British Protected Citizen" at the time of Barack Obama II's birth. Obama automatically inherited his father's British citizenship, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948. Upon the declaration of Kenyan Independence on December 11, 1963, Barack Obama automatically received his Kenyan citizenship on December 12, 1963. When Obama was around five years old, his mother married again, to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national. According to Obama's memoirs (Dreams From My Father) and official biography, it is common knowledge that the family immigrated to Indonesia around 1967. Obama's school records from Indonesia (P trial exhibit 7) document him using the last name "Soetoro" and nationality "Indonesian". So, between his birth and today, Obama had citizenship of three other countries, and he is a son of a foreign national and a stepson of another foreign national. Therefore, according to the precedent of Minor v Happersett, he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S..

Wong Kim Ark

The only case law that seems to contradict Minor is a precedent from U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898 ). Wong Kim Ark is a case relating to the citizenship of a young man born to two Chinese permanent residents. Kim Ark moved back to China and sought to return back to the U.S. as a U.S. citizen. Wong Kim Ark defined U.S. citizenship based upon jus solis, that is, based upon the place of birth and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S..

WONG KIM ARK IS NOT A CONTROLLING PRECEDENT FOR FARRAR

Kim Ark is not a controlling precedent for a number of reasons.

a. Kim Ark dealt only with citizenship in general. It never dealt with the definition of natural born citizenship.

b. Kim Ark never dealt with the issue of the U.S. Presidency and, as it relates to the President and Commander-in-Chief, the added requirement to be a natural born citizen.

c. In Kim Ark, both parents of the Defendant were permanent U.S. residents who intended to reside in the U.S.. Obama's father was never a permanent resident, and at the time of Obama's birth, he was in the U.S. on a student visa only, intending to return to Kenya.

d. Kim Ark was not an unanimous decision. Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Associate Justice John Harlan dissented, pointing out that, since the Declaration of the Independence, the U.S. departed from the British Common Law doctrine of jus solis and followed the international doctrine of jus sanguinis, by which offspring inherit the nationality and allegiance of their fathers.

e. The British common law doctrine of jus solis relates to allegiance to the crown, to the sovereign, which, of course, was abandoned in the U.S. after the adoption of the Constitution.

f. The majority opinion in Kim Ark was drafted by Associate Justice Horace Gray, an appointee of President Chester A. Arthur. It was rumored that Gray's commission and subsequent decision in Kim Ark was done to sanitize Arthur's own lack of eligibility. William Arthur, Chester Arthur's father, lived in Canada and was an British citizen, and there is no clear evidence that he became a U.S. citizen prior to Chester Arthur's birth on October 5, 1829, but rather, not until August 31, 1843. Reportedly, Chester Arthur burned his identification papers, and his eligibility is covered in mystery. Chester Arthur is the only other U.S. President besides Obama whose eligibility is questioned. Just because Arthur burned his documents does not give Obama a green light to disrespect the court and the nation and show contempt for the judiciary, and to refuse to produce any verifiable documents, any evidence of natural born status.

Due to all of the above, Plaintiffs believe that Kim Ark does not represent a binding authority.

INTENT OF THE FRAMERS

At the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, a treatise most commonly used by the framers was the Law of Nations, written in 1758 by a well known Swiss diplomat and jurist, Emer de Vattel. It was well known to the framers and often used as a template for the U.S. Constitution. Book 1, Chapter 19, section 212, of the Law of Nations says: "The natives, or indigenes [natural born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." It states "parents", in the plural, not "at least one parent," in the singular. Moreover, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the controlling citizenship was that of the father, and Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen. The framers knew the meaning of natural born, and that might be the reason why there was no definition in the Constitution. Based on Vattel and Minor, Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen, due to his foreign citizenship and foreign allegiance at birth.

One of the framers of the Constitution, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay, wrote in his well known July 25, 1787, letter to George Washington: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to admission of foreigners into the administration of the National government; and to declare expressly that the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen." (the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay; Bantam Dell 2003.) Clearly Jay's construction of the "natural born Citizen" clause was "one without allegiance to foreign nations," which disqualifies Obama.

Lastly, during the Congressional debate on the 14th amendment, John A. Bingham, co-author of the 14th Amendment, defined "natural-born citizen" as, "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." At the time of Obama's birth, his father owed allegiance to a foreign nation, so Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen according to Bingham's construction.

Based on the above precedent of Minor and definitions provided by the framers of the Constitution, a "natural born citizen" is one born in the country to parents who owe no allegiance to foreign sovereignties. Since, at the time of Obama's birth, his father owed allegiance to the British crown, Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen.

EVEN IF ARGUENDO MINOR DID NOT CONTROL, BUT KIM ARK CONTROLLED, OBAMA STILL DID NOT QUALIFY AS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, BECAUSE HE LACKED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF U.S. BIRTH, HE LACKED A VALID U.S. BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND HE LACKED A VALID SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

Even if arguendo the court were to decide that Minor does not control, but rather Kim Ark controls as a binding precedent, Obama still cannot be considered a natural born citizen, since he does not possess any valid documents attesting to his birth in the United States of America. Defendant did not produce any evidence or any documents verifying his birth. The only thing he is relying on is that, on April 27, 2011, he posted a computer image online and claimed that that computer image was a true and correct copy of his birth certificate, issued in 1961. He posted this image on mugs and T-shirts and sells them for $25 apiece, claiming it to be a verification of his eligibility. It is possible that an image on a mug constitutes prima facie evidence in Mombasa, Kenya; maybe an image on a T-shirt represents competent, admissible evidence in Jakarta, Indonesia; however, in the United States of America, where we hopefully have retained a rule of law, an image on mugs and T-shirts represents neither prima facie evidence, nor competent, admissible evidence. The only thing it represents is complete disrespect of law and of 311 million American citizens.

At trial, Plaintiffs in Farrar submitted evidence showing that the computer image posted online by Obama represents a computer generated forgery. Plaintiffs also presented evidence that Obama does not possess a valid Social Security number, and that he is illegally using a number issued in the state of Connecticut to another individual, who was born in 1890. Plaintiffs also provided evidence showing Obama using different last names, Soetoro and Soebarkah, and committing fraud, possible perjury and obstruction of justice, by hiding his identity under those last names. The evidence produced by the Plaintiffs is so incriminating that it warrants not only removal of Obama from the ballot, it warrants his criminal prosecution. Watergate pales in comparison to Obama's culpability.

Plaintiffs presented unrefuted evidence of Barack Obama's lack of a valid long form birth certificate.

At trial, Plaintiffs presented testimony of Scanning machines expert Douglas Vogt, Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, and senior deportation officer John Sampson.

Douglas Vogt's testimony was entered in the record (Case file, pp.57-73, Court Reporter transcript, pp.22-29, and attached e-mail from the staff attorney Kim Beal attesting that Judge Malihi entered exhibits into evidence).

1. Douglas Vogt (hereinafter, "Vogt") testified, that when the alleged copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate was posted online by Barack Obama, one could see a halo effect around the letters. Mr. Vogt testified that such a halo, white shading around letters, is a sign of forgery, and it does not happen when a document is simply scanned. It happens as a result of a forger using multiple layers and masking.

2. Vogt testified, that the embossed seal would be clearly visible, if it had been recently placed on a document. In the alleged birth certificate, which Obama posted online, there was no clear image of an embossed seal. There was a latent image, which would be seen when there is photocopying of photocopying of prior documents, not a copy of a freshly placed embossed seal.

3. Vogt testified, that the document in question was not a part of a book of records, as it was purported to be, but rather a piece of paper by itself scanned on a flatbed scanner.

4. Vogt testified, that a date stamp, which would be placed by hand, would be in slightly different positions on different certified copies. Obama's alleged two certified copies of the alleged birth certificate contained the date stamp in exactly the same spot, pixel by pixel, which would not be consistent with two separately stamped certified copies of a document.

5. Vogt testified, that a date stamp placed by hand would be slightly slanted; it would not be vertically straight pixel by pixel, as it is on this alleged copy.

6. Vogt testified, that in a document created in 1961 using a typewriter, one would not expect kerning, meaning one would not see one letter encroaching into the space of another letter, which is impossible with a typewriter. Vogt testified, that there was kerning in Obama's alleged birth certificate.

7. Vogt testified, that letter spacing and line spacing was off.

Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa (hereinafter, "Papa") testified, that he examined Obama's alleged long form birth certificate, posted by Obama online on WhiteHouse.gov on April 27, 2011. Papa authenticated his sworn affidavit entered into evidence (the court reporter transcript, pp.15-18, and exhibits in Case File, pp.40-48, admitted into evidence by Judge Malihi per e-mail from staff attorney Kim Beal.)

1. Papa testified, that when the Adobe Illustrator program loads a scanned document, it should appear as a single layer. Obama's alleged birth certificate consisted of multiple layers, which is consistent with using multiple documents in order to create a composite document.

2. Papa testified, in regards to one of these layers, enlarged via projector and shown on a screen in court. It showed that the serial number on the birth certificate was a composite number, where different digits came from different documents, on different layers.

3. Papa testified, that a seal was missing from a layer, as shown on the screen.

4. Papa testified, that the signature of Obama's mother was a composite as well, partially copied from another document.

Lastly, immigration officer John Sampson (hereinafter, "Sampson") testified (Sampson testimony court reporter transcript, pp.30-39, exhibits entered into evidence in Case File, pp.82-183).

Sampson testified that he worked as an immigration inspector since 1981. He received on the job training and classroom instruction at Kennedy airport. He testified, that his instructor was an intelligence officer who specialized in fraudulent documents and immigration fraud. Since around 1983, he was a senior deportation officer. Sampson has testified as an expert on immigration and deportation before federal grand juries and administrative law judges.

Sampson authenticated his affidavit, which was entered into evidence.

In regards to Obama's alleged copy of his birth certificate, he stated that there were several issues of concern:

1. The serial registration number in the upper right corner was out of sequence. The serial number was higher than known serial numbers of birth certificates of the Nordyke twins, who were registered three days later.

2. The certification paragraph was different than the certification paragraphs of known birth certificates.

3. The name of the registrar was different than the name of the registrar listed on the birth certificate of the Nordyke twins, born in the same hospital within 24 hours of Obama. One would expect the same registrar's name.

Based on all of the above, the alleged copy of a long form birth certificate posted by Obama online at WhiteHouse.gov does not represent a true and correct copy of any document, but rather, a computer-generated forgery. Obama did not appear in court and did not present any documents. Thus, he did not meet his burden of showing that he possesses necessary identification papers to meet statutory and Constitutional qualifications for holding the office being sought.

Plaintiffs presented unrefuted evidence that the Defendant lacks a valid Social Security number.

While a Social Security number is not a document evidencing birth per se, it is one that is commonly forged, as it is an important unique identifier. A Social Security number is issued based on a valid birth certificate. Lack of a valid Social Security number is an indirect, circumstantial indicator of lack of a valid long form birth certificate because, without a valid birth certificate, one cannot obtain a valid Social Security number.

Five witnesses testified in regards to Social Security fraud.

Licensed investigator Susan Daniels testified (Court reporter record, pp.10-14, exhibits accepted into evidence in the case file, pp.15-39).

Daniels testified that, at the time Obama got his Social Security number, the numbers were assigned based on the state where one resided, where one applied for one's Social Security number.

1. Daniels testified, that she immediately knew that the Social Security number was fraudulent, as it was a Connecticut number, and Obama resided in Hawaii at a time. The number Obama is using is "042-68-4425"; it starts with "042", which three digits are assigned to Connecticut.

2. Daniels testified, that the aforementioned SSN was recorded for a person having another date of birth, 1890, and Daniels believed that this SSN was assigned to an individual born in 1890. She believed that Mr. Obama used this Social Security number fraudulently.

3. Daniels testified, that the aforementioned Connecticut SSN was connected to Obama's phone records as well, and those also showed a date of birth of 1890.

4. Daniels testified, that she checked a number of released Social Security numbers which were issued before and after the SSN in question. She found that all of them were issued in Connecticut around 1977, at a time Obama resided with his grandparents in Hawaii. He was never a resident of Connecticut.

Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, who testified in regards to evidence of forgery in Obama's birth certificate, as described previously, also testified in regards to Obama's 2009 tax returns posted online in 2010 at WhiteHouse.gov. Papa testified that, originally the PDF file was not flattened, and the full social Security number was fully visible to the public. Papa testified that, it was indeed 042-68-4425, the Connecticut Social Security number which was previously described as fraudulent by Detective Daniels.

Witness Linda Jordan testified that, on August 17, 2011, she personally ran Obama's E-Verify check. E-Verify records show a mismatch between the name Barack Obama and the Social Security number he is using in his tax returns, which were previously provided by witness Papa. Witness Linda Jordan authenticated the E-Verify record (exhibits entered into evidence in the case file, p.56 and pp.198-200, and her testimony in the court reporter transcript, on pp.19-21).

Retired Senior deportation officer John Sampson testified and authenticated his affidavit, previously submitted to the Plaintiffs. Sampson testified, that the Social Security number used by Obama was issued in 1977 in the state of Connecticut, at the time Obama was residing with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii.

The first amended complaint in this case contains an affidavit of Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs, attesting that she personally ran Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 through "Selective Service System: Welcome," an official Selective Service website, and found that Obama used the aforementioned Connecticut Social Security number in his Selective Service application (first amended complaint, affidavit of Orly Taitz and Selective Service printout, as well as trial exhibit 7, entered into evidence in case file, pp.190-193). Plaintiffs' witnesses and exhibits entered into evidence showed that not only does Obama not possess a valid birth certificate, he does not possess a valid Social Security number, but rather, he is using a Social Security number which was assigned to another individual in the state of Connecticut. This constitutes additional evidence of lack of valid identification papers which are needed to prove Obama's Constitutional and statutory eligibility as a natural born citizen of the U.S..

Plaintiffs presented this court with unrefuted evidence of Defendant using multiple last names, whereby Obama might not be his legal name.

Witness Chris Strunk testified and authenticated a report, received by him personally in response to his Freedom of Information request submitted to the U.S. State Department (court reporter transcript, pp.8,9, and exhibits entered into evidence in the case file, pp.1-14). Aforementioned report contained passport records of Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, which show Obama listed under the last name, "Soebarkah".

The attorney for Plaintiffs was sworn in as a witness and testified. She presented the court with a video clip from "CBS/Inside Edition" report from Indonesia, showing a reporter's visit to Obama's former elementary school, Fransiskus Assisi Catholic school in Jakarta, Indonesia, and a review of the school book of records by the reporter for "CBS/Inside Edition." The video clip, brought as a business record and as a matter of common knowledge, shows that, in Indonesian school records, Obama was listed under the last name Soetoro, which was the last name of his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, and nationality Indonesian, which was also the nationality of his stepfather. (An enlarged copy of Obama's school record from the Fransiskus Assisi school was entered into evidence in Case file P-7, pp.184,185.) Defendant did not present any evidence to refute the above testimony or to refute evidence showing that he used different last names, Soetoro and Soebarkah, and that he had Indonesian citizenship. As an Indonesian citizen, he does not qualify to run for the U.S. Presidency. There is no evidence to show Obama legally changing his name from Soetoro or Soebarkah to Obama. If Obama is not his legal name, he cannot be on the ballot in the state of Georgia under the name Obama.

DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR SHOWS GUILTY MIND.

Defendant's behavior shows guilty mind. Defendant had an opportunity to appear in court and provide certified copies of his vital records. He chose not to show up and not to produce any records. From his behavior, the inference can be made that he does not possess any valid records. This is particularly significant, as this is the first time the issue of Obama's eligibility is being heard on the merits. Until now, all of the eligibility challenges were dismissed on procedural grounds, such as lack of standing to challenge a sitting president, lack of jurisdiction, or abstention. This is the first challenge where electors have standing to challenge Obama and to have their challenge heard on the merits. It is reasonable to believe that, if Obama possessed any valid identification papers, he would have produced them and would have stopped all further challenges on res judicata or collateral estoppel. Obama's contempt of court, refusal to show up in court for trial, and lack of any valid identification papers represent circumstantial evidence of guilty mind and inability to respond on the merits and prove his Constitutional and statutory eligibility.

There is a pattern of behavior by the defendant, showing attempts to obstruct justice, to submit forged or fraudulently obtained documents, and to hide his prior identity under the names "Soetoro" and "Soebarkah".

Orly Taitz, Plaintiffs' attorney, testified that she downloaded from public online records registration@iardc.org of the Illinois bar Obama's application to the Illinois bar (entered into evidence in case file P-7, p.187). In the registration Obama was asked to provide his full name, which he provided as "Barack Hussein Obama." On the next line he was asked for prior names; Obama entered "none". This contradicts official passport records of Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, previously entered into evidence, which show Obama listed under the last name "Soebarkah" in his mother's passport records. This also contradicts Obama's school registration from Jakarta, Indonesia, where he was listed under the last name "Soetoro". Clearly, Obama knew that he went by the last name "Soebarkah". Clearly he knew that for four years he went to school under the last name "Soetoro". Obama's actions show a pattern of fraud and possibly perjury, if the registration to the bar was done under the penalty of perjury. Taitz further testified that she contacted the Illinois bar and complained that Obama committed fraud by not disclosing his last name. She stated that, originally, the bar refused to take any action, because Obama's status was listed as "inactive". When Taitz complained that "inactive" status can be activated at any time, Obama changed his status from "inactive" to "ineligible to practice law." It appears that Obama has forfeited his law license and an expensive Harvard law degree in order to keep hidden his identity under his prior names, "Soetoro" and "Soebarkah".

In the case at hand, Obama and his attorney participated in the proceedings up to the point where attorney Orly Taitz issued a subpoena for Obama to appear and provide certified copies of his identification records. As the motion to quash the subpoena was denied by this court, Obama made one more desperate last ditch effort to avoid trial by writing to the Georiga Secretary of State, seeking the assistance of the Secretary of State in halting this trial and protecting Obama from subpoenas filed by Taitz. As the last effort failed, Obama simply forfeited the 9th largest state in the Union, a state with nearly 10 million citizens, in order to keep his records hidden. Obama's modus operandi shows that, just as he forfeited his law license in Illinois, he forfeited a state with nearly 10 million citizens to keep his identity under other last names and his vital records hidden.

Taitz testified to the fact that there are other areas of inconsistency in Obama's records. Exhibits entered into evidence (Case records, p.186) show a picture of Obama with his friend Scott Inoue, signed, Third Grade Honolulu, Hawaii, 1969 (Where's the Birth Certificate, by Jerome Corsi, 2011 edition, p.21). This picture contradicts Obama's accounts in his Memoirs and official biography, which place him in Indonesia from 1967 [until 1971]. School records from the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta show him attending school there under the name, "Barry Soetoro," from January, 1967. On the other hand, his picture from Noelani Elementary School in Honolulu, Hawaii, shows him attending school there under the name "Barry Obama," in 1968 and 1969. It appears that for a period of two years, there were two distinctly separate individuals: Barry Obama, who attended Noelani Elementary School in Hawaii, and Barry Soetoro, who attended the Fransiskus Assisi School in Indonesia. It is not clear how these two individuals merge into one person. It is not clear who came back from Indonesia: Barry Obama or Barry Soetoro. We have no idea who is residing in the White House: is it Barry Obama or Barry Soetoro? If it is Barry Soetoro, what happened to Barry Obama?

There are multiple similar inconsistencies throughout Obama's life. Taitz submitted as an exhibit Obama's official attendance record obtained by Taitz from the official records of Student Clearing House, at www.studentclearinghouse.org, showing Obama attending Columbia University for only nine months, from September, 1982, until May, 1983 (submitted with the first amended complaint, and as trial exhibit 7 admitted into evidence in this case file, p.189). Aside from the obvious question of how did he get a degree from Columbia University while attending the school for only nine months, this matter is relevant to the issue of eligibility for the following reasons. In his campaign speeches in 2008, Obama stated that he went to Pakistan over the summer break in 1981 and visited his friends, prior to starting Columbia in 1981. His Columbia records show him starting classes in Columbia a year later, in September of 1982, not in September of 1981. Pakistan was ruled at the time by a radical militant leader, General Zia Ul Haq. Most Americans then did not dare to visit Pakistan and be identified as Americans. The question arises: what passport did Obama use to travel to Pakistan? If he used his Indonesian passport in 1981-1982, when he was 20-21 years old, he affirmed his Indonesian citizenship during his age of majority and thereby forfeited his U.S. citizenship, because dual citizenship was not recognized by either country at the time. Without Obama providing his certified identification records, and without verifying them against the originals, these questions cannot be answered.

Lastly, Senior Deportation officer Sampson testified and provided his analysis of the immigration records of Lolo Soetoro, Obama's stepfather (court reporter's record, pp.34-38, and exhibits admitted into evidence in the case file, pp.74-183). Sampson testified that redactions in the immigration file were a source of concern. He testified that records of deceased individuals are not redacted. Lolo Soetoro is deceased, Stanley Ann Dunham is deceased, and so are her parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham. Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro, would not have been listed on Ann Soetoro's immigration application, because Maya had not yet been born. The only person, the only family member, who could possibly have been listed on those records, was Obama. Sampson testified, that if Obama was a natural born citizen at birth and never lost his U.S. citizenship while residing in Indonesia, there was no reason for him to apply for an immigration visa, and he would have traveled on his U.S. passport. This is yet another area of a reasonable doubt as to Obama's natural born status and eligibility.

Sampson was asked :

Q. "Knowing all the information that you have in regards to Mr. Obama, what would be your conclusion, and what do you believe that needs to be done - or what would you do in cases similar to this with these kinds of records?"

A. Sampson testified that a case like Obama's warranted further investigation and production of birth records from the state of Hawaii, the Social Security Administration, and immigration and passport records. He stated, "...let me clarify - in the event we would be conducting an investigation, it would be a criminal investigation to determine whether any charges should be filed. And the way the procedure works in [the] federal system is that you would do a report, [and] submit it to the United States Attorney's Criminal Division, so that they could review it and determine whether or not they would accept it for prosecution.
"Assuming that they declined it, the alternative would be, if there was evidence to suggest that the individual in question was not a citizen of the United States and in fact had falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen, that person could be placed in deportation proceedings, because falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen is a separate and entirely standalone charge for deportation purposes."

Q. "Would it be sufficient for a warrant for this person's arrest?"

A. "Well, that would be how you would commence a removal proceeding. You would request an administrative arrest warrant signed by a field officer director..."

Q. "... So, just to clarify for the Court, if the U.S. Attorney refuses to proceed - to act - as a deportation officer, you would have been seeking a warrant for arrest of this individual and deportation?"

A. "I would be seeking a warrant of arrest and then issuance of a notice to appear on any individual who made a false claim to United States citizenship, and who was not clearly a citizen or was clearly admitted for permanent residence."

Q. "Thank you, thank you, Mr. Sampson."

The testimony of witnesses, including senior deportation officer Sampson, showed such problems that, in the professional opinion of the deportation officer, they warranted a criminal investigation and possible deportation.

Summary

The court rules and adjudicates on the merits that the Defendant did not meet his Constitutional and statutory burden and is not eligible to be on the ballot as a Presidential candidate, and

1. Forwards such findings to the Secretary of State of Georgia;

2. Awards the Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs;

3. Forwards to the Attorney General of Georgia court records of witness testimony and documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs for the purpose of criminal investigation and prosecution of the Defendant for suspected elections fraud and suspected use of forged/fraudulently obtained identification records with the intent to defraud the people of the state of Georgia;

4. Forwards to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Deportation Department, for further investigation, the witness testimony and documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs; and

5. Issues an order to show cause, due to Defendant's failure to comply with a duly issued subpoena, and determines and rules whether Defendant and his attorney should be sanctioned for contempt of court.

CERTIFICATION

I, Orly Taitz, attest that, pursuant to court instructions, I served the Defendant via e-mail through his attorney Michael Jablonski at Michael.Jablonski@comcast.net

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
02.01.2012

The doctor will/won't see you now
Posted: Feb 02, 2012 9:56 PM
By Dana Wright, Chief Investigative Reporter
By Kelly Just, Exec. Producer of Special Projects
By DeAnn Smith, Digital Content Manager

PDF: Lakin Transcript

TOPEKA, KS (KCTV) -

A Kansas board that denied a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine a license was primarily concerned about the man's political views.

The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts is a 15-member panel appointed by the governor and decides the fate of doctors in Kansas.

Terrence Lee Lakin rose to the ranks of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. He served on the front lines in Afghanistan and the war zone in Bosnia as well as a medical mission to Honduras. He saved lives around the world and received a Bronze Star for his service.

"I like helping people," said Lakin. "And I've been, since college wanting to be in medical field and help others."

But a dispute over whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States led to Lakin being forced from the military and apparently led to the Kansas board in October denying him a medical license to practice in the Sunflower State.

The board repeatedly refused comment on their decision, but a transcript of Lakin's shows board members didn't concern themselves with Lakin's 18-year spotless medical record.

"They hammered me for my political views," said Lakin.

Nearly two years ago, the then lieutenant colonel asked for proof that Obama was born in the United States. When he didn't get it, Lakin announced via a video posted on www.safeguardourconstitution.com, "I will disobey my orders to deploy because I believe all servicemen and women and the American people deserve the truth about President Obama, the office of the presidency and the commander in chief."

In April 2010, citing a possible break in the chain of command, Lakin did refuse a second tour of duty to Afghanistan. In December of that year, he went through a court martial for missing movement and failing to obey a lawful order – both violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When Lakin was found guilty of breaking military law, the Army gave him a dishonorable discharge, stripped him of his rank and sentenced him to a six-month prison term at Fort Leavenworth.

The dishonorable discharge had no bearing on Lakin's license to practice medicine in Maryland or Colorado. But the Kansas board ruled Lakin's refusal to deploy to Afghanistan "…potentially jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of the military troops for which applicant was employed to provide medical care."

The military dispatched another doctor to fill Lakin's mission.

The Oct. 21 hearing about Lakin's medical license lasted just 16 minutes. Lenexa physician Michael J. Beezley kicked off the questioning about Lakin's thoughts on the president.

"So I guess you need to explain the difference between going to Afghanistan in 2004 and going over there after President Obama was elected," said Beezley. "Is that the big kick?"

"Yes," replied Lakin.

Ellsworth Dr. Ronald Whitmer then followed up.

"Do you believe he was a U.S. citizen, President Obama?" he asked.

"I don't know," Lakin replied.

"...the long form of his birth certificate has been publicized," Whitmer said. "What does it take to make you believe that he is a U.S. citizen?"

"I think that I have a question and I don't think that question's been answered, but if this has to do with my medical capabilities...," said Lakin.

"What would make you have that answered?" said Whitmer.

Whitmer kept pressing Lakin.

"Say if and when he's elected again and the Reconciliation Act becomes law, which it already is, and all of a sudden we have 20 million more people who've got healthcare, are you going to refuse those people because this is?" asked Whitmer.

"No. No. No," insisted Lakin. "I was being ordered to a combat zone to, you know, put my life on the line."

Just as Lakin's medical record didn't matter to the board, another doctor's medical record also didn't matter to the panel.

KCTV5's investigation reveals that in 2008, the KSBHA board approved the license of another doctor with a history of medical mistakes and malpractice payouts. One patient died after a drill mishap in the operating room. A surgical error caused repeated electrical shocks to a second patient. And a third patient wasn't even that doctor's patient. The physician didn't notice, ended up performing brain surgery on the wrong man and caused permanent damage.

The board refused our repeated requests for an interview about the decisions it makes and the seeming disparity of these two cases. A renowned University of Pennsylvania medical ethicist, Art Caplan, agreed to weigh in on the situation.

"Political beliefs, I think, should play no role," said Caplan. "Is it going to be a popularity contest that decides what political views you can have as a doctor? Or is it going to be the majority views that decides what political views you can have? Obviously, again - I don't think this is relevant to who practices well."

Lakin agrees with Caplan. "I knew medical boards had a bad reputation. I had hoped this issue would have nothing to do with my practice."

Lakin's only recourse now is a judicial appeal, but he's uncertain that he can afford the costs. He has a book coming out this month detailing his experiences.

In the meantime, looking into the medical background of your doctor is no easy task. You can start with a search of the Kansas or Missouri board websites to see your doctor is under any disciplinary action. To uncover any history prior to practicing in Kansas or Missouri, you will have to file a records request with the state licensing board for your doctor's original state application.

To go to the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, click here.

To go to the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, click here.

To listen to the hearing, click here.

Copyright 2012 KCTV (Meredith Corp.) All rights reserved.

Answer from Orly: you have to fight
this fascist regime of thugs and criminals.
If you don’t fight, you will lose for sure.

[Typing on blogs isn't fighting. - ED]