Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

[ED.: For those of us who believe that due process in the courts still has power to redress grievances against the usurper dictator, Torm Howse's 2009 U.S. Code compilation is worth reviewing.]

11-03-09 [ don't see all the links? view this, online at: http://unitedcivilrights.org/uscode-v-obama.html ]
Greetings to all Plaintiff parties, counsel, and thousands of supporters, behind a selection of m-a-n-y Obama "eligibility" cases filed within the States' and U.S. federal court systems.
[ see list of all the many original recipients, online at: http://unitedcivilrights.org/uvo-distribution.html ]

The legal info below shall end the faux "Presidency", and shall result in: Re-Election 2010

Or, since the Constitution requires all VP candidates to *separately* run: Re-Election 2010

As provided to you all below, the various hammering statutory laws of the United States Code "shall.." be plenty enough to expose all of the pertinent records for Mr. Obama's lack-of-citizenship, lack-of-natural-born-status, and, accordingly, his utter lack of valid eligibility for the Presidency. No more caselaw, legal doctrine, or anything else that provides the judges any sort of "discretion"... These are the commanding statutes of the United States, and Obama "shall" vacate the office.

The main "social" and "political" problem? Lack of solid direction in having the new/proper Administration already to go, so that the transition of power, itself, is fairly described, predictable, definable, and reasonably dependable in confidence to the American public, especially under such an unusual Constitutional situation... Therefore, and pursuant to the Constitution's express design, I have provided the correct Acting President and Acting Vice-President, below, and also proposed a well-balanced selection of the entire new Joint Administration Cabinet's twenty-one (21) officials, most of whom are well-known.

Cheers and Blessings in Constitutional Truth,
little ol' me

---

Why haven't any of you used the simple power of the United States Code mandates that are directly on point??

Like, as in, uhm?.. U.S.C. Title 44, Chapter 22: "PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS"
[Thank veteran Congress members for passing the Presidential Records Act of 1978]

The statutory law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple ways, that:
a) the AG *cannot* represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the *prosecuting* side against Obama, if the AG is involved, at all... In fact, whether intentional or not, Obama and Holder can be hit with "constructive fraud", at the very least...
b) the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either... Again, whether intentional or not, you have that "constructive fraud" against the rule of law thing again...
c) there are various statutory standings provided for even "mere" individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.
d) Obama's "Presidential records" are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of simple written law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in any citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7+ million spent so far... plus interest and penalties, naturally... plus, getting deported, or imprisoned, or whatever else...).
e) additionally, there are all sorts of various federal agencies/heads to statutorily go after Obama's eligibility through.

I have detailed and provided the direct links to all of these applicable federal statutes, below.


Of course, we all know that Obama and his agents have fully admitted his dual-citizenship at birth, which precludes him from ever being President, even notwithstanding the obviously-suspicious concealment of virtually all pertinent records...

[ED.: You may want to skip four paragraphs down, to "NOTICE RE: MDL CONSOLIDATION OF 'OBAMA ELIGIBILITY' CASES:".]

Who, then, are the lawful United States Prez and VP, per the original Constitution, right now, at this very moment??
That's easy enough to answer:
1. Mr. John McCain, Republican, *is* the President, temporarily, until the Re-Election that must be done, promptly.
2. Mr Ralph Nader, Independent, *is* the Vice-President, temporarily, until the Re-Election that must be done, promptly.

(and, those two are not my personal combo pick, but that IS the result of law per the original Constitution, so fine...).

Oh, and no worries about any "vacuum of power" anxiousness, because of this proposed new Joint Cabinet to be used during the temporary period, accepting this well-balanced set of American leaders (yes, every person listed is eligible and legally qualified to hold the position indicated - you better believe I double-checked that, first...):
http://www.editgrid.com/user/indianacrc/newJointCabinet

America needs officials that actually have skill and talent, as our Cabinet - not always a bunch of political flunkies. Further, I have balanced the new proposed Cabinet as 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Rep, and 1/3 all other legally-"major" parties, also indicated an increase in the number of resulting women upon the President's Cabinet, and additionally sought more harmonious balance within religious and ideological characteristics of the group of officials, plus added geographical and age diversity into the mix, so as to well-represent the vast majority of America, as the temporary power *within* the White House... you see.


NOTICE RE: MDL CONSOLIDATION OF "OBAMA ELIGIBILITY" CASES:

Since, even after allowing an entire year now since the fraudulent 2008 General Election, it STILL seems that nobody is able to get actually serious enough to throw a flagrantly-obvious impostor/usurper out of office, in using the court system and the laws already in force, it seems there's no choice but to soon enter into each of your own respective cases, immediately move to consolidate them all together under MDL (federal Multi-District Litigation), and maybe also bump it up into a huge mass-action or class-action suit, allowing for each and every U.S. Citizen, Taxpayer, Voter and Landowner to be able to self-join/self-intervene by geography (i.e., by jurisdiction), using simple checkbox "legal standing" forms made available online, and then self-filed per each of their own respective Divisional courthouses. And, I just happen to have a nationwide network of 3200+ online groups (for every single State, County, Parish, Borough and Independent City across the whole country) to actually do it, if really needed... That is, unless I can finally see some serious progress made *by the others leading* in these various "NObama" impostor/usurper cases still active in any court, and that good progress implemented in the most urgently quick and direct fashion, by using any or all of the legal info/ammo provided below.


APPLICABLE STATUTES RE: OBAMA'S "PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS":

Let's start out with THE most basic/direct way to end all of this nonsense, once and for all, ok???

A simple review of United States Code, Title 44, Chapter 22: "Presidential Records", provides what is needed.

Title 44, CHAPTER 22 — PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._44_10_22.html
§ 2201. Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
i.e., Obama's "Presidential records", including all *Constitutional* and similar official documentation, are expressly NOT protected to any forms of privacy or concealment allowed, like his "personal records" are allowed to be..
and, indeed, since the United States now actually OWNS those same "Presidential records", and not Obama!, see
§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
then the United States has NO possible legitimate reason, whatsoever!, to withhold documentation - from ITSELF, hint, hint - of the question of existence, or not, of the properly authenticated qualifications of Mr. Obama, et al... i.e., of it's own "CEO"... No, the "shareholders" of America are absolutely entitled to see authentication, proven and confirmed.

IN FACT, it is actually Obama's **STATUTORY DUTY** to ensure his "Presidential records" are made public...!!!
§ 2203. Management and custody of Presidential records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
and, to the point necessary:
§ 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html
paragraph (c)(1) of which provides that those "Presidential records", i.e., THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND ANY OTHER SUCH "QUALIFICATIONS" DOCUMENTATION, "shall" be made public, pursuant to
Title 5, § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

Sooo.. merely use the existing jurisdiction of your current "eligibility" case, to subpoena the relevant collection of "Presidential records" from the Archivist and/or National Archives and Records Administration, pursuant to
§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html
under paragraph (2)(A) thereof, and, VOILA! Case closed, slam-dunk, Obama IS done. Over and out. The end.

(and Mr. McCain and Mr. Nader take over White House power until the Re-Election is held promptly thereafter, as acting President and acting Vice-President, per the original selection process order under the original Constitutional design, as the Presidential vote-getters # 2 and # 3 behind invalid Obama, who is not a natural born Citizen, "failed to qualify", etc.)

For further pertinent records handling info, see also:
CHAPTER 29—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY THE ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES AND BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._44_10_29.html
and
CHAPTER 31—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._44_10_31.html



REGARDING CONSTANT FAILURES VIA "STANDING" ISSUES:

Also, after all of these many cases **continually dismissed** for ONE recurring issue - i.e., STANDING TO SUE - I am simply a-m-a-z-e-d that none of the present cases, with maybe the exception of Donofrio, and that only to a limited degree, have even remotely-adequately addressed any of several available, concrete-solid standing postures of virtually any U.S. Citizen, eligible Voter, Taxpayer, Landowner, or the like. The wide range of standing postures at option includes all manner of first-person, second-person, and third-party standing scenario availabilities. Here, for those of you that wish to learn about LEGAL STANDING, are just several online options, of many out there, to begin with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scr...44a48fa74a5d3a
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing
http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/standing
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...tanding-to-sue
http://www.answers.com/topic/standing-to-sue
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...4/civ00035.htm (i.e., "the Government ADMITS...")
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O18...dingToSue.html
Sooo, as merely a FEW examples, only, there are easy, straightforward uses of either vertical and/or horizontal ‘privity’ for bulletproof standing, due to the running of Hillary Clinton, Dr. Keyes, and etc. against Mr. Obama for the same position – i.e., “Berg ex rel. Clinton v. Obama, et al.” or "Taitz ex rel. Keyes v. Obama, et al." - so as to not even be requiring the person of interest to be the petitioning party, in the first place... let alone the power of using the direct petitioning parties, themselves, if using ADEQUATE standing authorities... written into play... Then, there's an entire myriad of standing options under compelling various federal officers to do THEIR duty to investigate Obama's qualifications, see even the multiple *statutory* standings provided below. There's also other legal relational standings, like fiduciary duties of one person/entity to another.. hint, hint.. And, there were/are plenty of other solid, indisputable, and basic foundations for full legal standing for use in play, including, but not limited to, arguments under and via ‘collateral contract’, ‘trusts’, ‘agency’, and the ‘assignment of contractual rights.’ And, again, there's the direct legal standings of voters, taxpayers, and each Citizen... the KEY is all is well as long as the proper amount of binding authority is finally brought into written play, first! There is *overwhelming* authority on establishing *all kinds* of standing, so what IS the problem so far in sadly systemic, routine failures by "eligibility" Plaintiffs to adequately address the wide variety of indisputable STANDING authorities???

Heck, I, as a mere Citizen, have full standing by my own Citizenship, and its attributes of voting, paying taxes, Obama's and/or the Fed's and State's fiduciary duties to me, and also as a landowner, if I owned land at the moment.. Moreover, I have standing, again, but in the second/third-person, as "ex rel" on behalf of any other Citizen, to protect his or her Rights and Interests, as their "next friend", and the same "ex rel" on behalf of any part of Government towards another part, etc...

Remember, you are guaranteed a "remedy" for a wrong, Constitutionally... Gad-zoinks people!!!, even also under the Federal Constitution, there is *explicit* Citizen standing already provided. See Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1... cf. Amendments 9 & 10... see also Art. IV, Sec. 4, first participle/clause. You can also achieve citizen standing through being denied the right to a *meaningful* vote, and therefore making challenge under Amendment XIV, Section 2 (to compel changing the local basis of representation, duh, even if that is not your *primary* goal.. hint, hint..). Now then, go back and read the end of that First Amendment again..


But, enough about the utter joke of standing.. The following list is a selection of MANY statutory ways to throw Obama "out da house", quickly. Please now implement and use at least SOME of them in your own cases, right away, so that I can get back to preparing other key God, Country, and Family issues (SepChurchState, Creation-Evolution, ElectionFraud, Economy/SocialPrograms, FedRsrv/GoldStd/Dollar, rebalance of power, individual liberties, limited government, etc.), for their actual restorations, via a brand new kind of huge federal legal challenge, to get us back at least close to the Framers' original Constitutional design and intent, as soon as it is possible for one poor man to get it all ... done, and done right.

Yeah, that's right. I have chosen to live near poverty for years now, fighting part-time or more for restoration of America.
If you like my help, I could sure use donations, left side on http://unitedcivilrights.org, to upgrade to full-time restoration.


EXISTING STATUTES PROVIDE VARIOUS ROUTES TO OBAMA:

Indeed, a simple once-through, of every possibly-relevant Title of the entire United States Code, looking for the "potentials", reveals at least a few dozen more direct ways to go after Obama, reveals that AG Eric Holder and his U.S. Attorneys are in **multiple statutory DIRECT conflicts-of-interest** by representing Obama, over citizenship questions, instead of representing the *express* interests of the United States and its several by-statute agencies/departments to the direct contrary of Obama's legal interests, and even reveals that "AG-Elect" Eric Holder could now be removed from office, for merely participating on the wrong side in Obama's citizenship problems... In other words, get rid of Holder & U.S. Attys OUT of these "eligibility" cases, immediately, since you now have, below, the clear-cut, mandate power of law to do so!



from United States Code, TITLE 2, The Congress:


--> example - go after Obama's *Senator* records from the 2004 Illinois election, to check eligibilities...
§ 1a. Election to be certified by governor
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1---a000-.html
§ 1b. Countersignature of certificate of election
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1---b000-.html
but see, for "devil's advocate" knowledge,
§ 118. Actions against officers for official acts
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
yet, not to worry!, because the special circumstance is Obama being a U.S. Senator, and under
§ 118a. Officers of Senate
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8---a000-.html
section 118 actually doesn't apply to Obama, so no representation/defense by AG Eric Holder or his US Attorneys...
and besides, the Senate and Senators have their own *statutory* representation, anyway:
§ 288. Office of Senate Legal Counsel
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
see also
§ 288c. Defending the Senate, committee, subcommittee, member, officer, or employee of Senate
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8---c000-.html
...but, most definitely, the AG (nor his staff, the U.S. Attorneys...) *cannot* represent either the U.S. Senate, former Speaker Cheney, current Speaker Pelosi, Reid, or etc., when it comes to the question of citizenship/qualification of Obama as President-Elect, but the representation *must* be ONLY the Senate Legal Counsel, for any/all of them... because of:
§ 288h. Defense of certain constitutional powers
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8---h000-.html
and, also because of:
§ 288k. Attorney General relieved of responsibility
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8---k000-.html
and, also because the AG's direct conflict-of-interest is inherent in challenging Obama's citizenship, see, e.g.:
Title 8, § 1501. Certificate of diplomatic or consular officer of United States as to loss of American nationality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


Also under Title 2 of the United States Code, please take note of federal statutes concerning the FEC.
Title 2, § 437c. Federal Election Commission
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7---c000-.html
(b) Administration, enforcement, and formulation of policy; exclusive jurisdiction of civil enforcement; Congressional authorities or functions with respect to elections for Federal office
(1) The Commission shall administer, seek to obtain compliance with, and formulate policy with respect to, this Act and chapter 95 and chapter 96 of title 26. The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of such provisions.
** whereas that same Chapter 95 of Title 26 referenced above includes/specifies:
** when referring to aspects of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, including eligibilities...
§ 9011. Judicial review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
** which gets most any INDIVIDUAL PERSON the right of STANDING to go after Obama, via paragraph:
(b) Suits to implement chapter
(1) The Commission, the national committee of any political party, and individuals eligible to vote for President are authorized to institute such actions, including actions for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief, as may be appropriate to implement or contrue [1] any provisions of this chapter.
** while back in Title 2, re: the FEC itself, there is ALSO express/specific judicial review available again to "any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President"...:
§ 437h. Judicial review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7---h000-.html
soooo, there is more than one way of obtaining *statutory standing* to sue Obama, et al... and there are others, too...


The creative legal mind can certainly leverage this statute against Obama, somehow, hint, hint:
Title 2, § 441h. Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000441---h000-.html


Continuing with remaining Title 2 potentials, believe it or not (and, it figures...), there is nothing very useful under here, as they obviously didn't want themselves really held accountable in any meaningful manner, if they could avoid it, duh..:
Title 2, CHAPTER 24 — CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_24.html
SUBCHAPTER IV—ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE-RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_24_20_IV.html
so, skip all of that, except make a mental note that Congress has "unlawfully" shielded themselves from judicial accountability?


from United States Code, TITLE 3, The President:

§ 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html
like stated in Constitution, objections to electoral vote must be called for by the Speaker
likewise, either Biden, and/or Pelosi, God forbid, can be compelled under 28 USC 1361 to "qualify" Obama and themselves:
§ 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...9----000-.html
another statutory parallel to the Constitutional provisions



from United States Code, TITLE 5, Government Organization and Employees:


Even MORE legal authority to leverage/expose Obama through the FEC, via Title 5 of the United States Code, as to otherwise judicially compelling ALL OTHER duties of the FEC to be manifested into reality, including eligibilities...
Title 5, CHAPTER 7 - JUDICIAL REVIEW in general
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...10_I_30_7.html
§ 701. Application; definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
i.e., the FEC is *not* listed as an excluded "agency" to judicial review
and confirm also via:
§ 702. Right of review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
which includes rights of *individuals eligible to vote for President* to sue in federal court, i.e., STATUTORY STANDING
and, while the available scope of review for the federal court used is quite wide and grand, indeed, *constitutionally*:
§ 706. Scope of review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html


Then, there's also going through the angle of the federal Office of Personnel Management
§ 1103. Functions of the Director
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
i.e., to judicially compel, by 28 USC 1361 federal officer duty mandate (see Title 28 below), the Director of OPM to "qualify" Obama as a bona fide qualified federal employee, i.e., as a bona fide U.S. Citizen, etc.
i.e., as in their statutory duty to ensure Obama's "loyalty" to the USA...
§ 1304. Loyalty investigations
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html


Then, as to compelling the various Secretaries of State (in the various different sister States) to "ensure validity" of Obama's qualifications and eligibility, those such Plaintiffs can maybe use:
§ 1502. Influencing elections; taking part in political campaigns; prohibitions; exceptions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
particulary paragraph (a)(1) and maybe also (a)(2) thereof


Heck, also under Title 5, you could use the compelling of the Merit Systems Protection Board, in the same way as compelling the Director of OPM above, pursuant to
§ 1505. Hearings; adjudications; notice of determinations
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html
and under paragraph (2) thereof, to have Obama removed from office...
which would be agency whitewashed, of course, so then you have statutory right to judicial review, thereafter
§ 1508. Judicial review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html


Also under Title 5 of the United States Code are other commanding "loyalty" statutes, such as
§ 3333. Employee affidavit; loyalty and striking (think: "withholding Presidential records") against the Government
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
and by following through to the referenced statute therein:
§ 7311. Loyalty and striking
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
"An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;"
i.e., we find that Obama is *affirmatively* violating paragraph (1) above, every day, as long as he refuses or "fails to qualify" as Prez under the Constitutional manner dictated, refuses to "make public" his "Presidential records" as per law, etc...


from United States Code, TITLE 8, Aliens and Nationality:


regarding defining a U.S. "national" or U.S. "citizen"
***OLDER
in general:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1_8_10_11.html
a couple of specifics worth tracing through the Library of Congress:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
***NEWER
in general:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...12_20_III.html
a few specifics usable thereunder are:
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
§ 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
§ 1488. Nationality lost solely from performance of acts or fulfillment of conditions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html


You could/can compel the Sec of Homeland Security's duties (again, under 28 USC 1361 mandate) to investigate Obama's citizenship
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
(which also, again, shows the inherent conflict-of-interest with the AG representing/defending Obama's citizenship issue)
AND/OR
you could/can compel the Sec of State (Hillary) to do the same thing, i.e., investigate Obama's citizenship
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html
which also, by the way, adds a nice touch of direct conflict-of-interests into the game


see also:
§ 1227. Deportable aliens
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html
(multiple angles of attack v. Obama herein, see *especially* (a)(3)(D) thereunder)
(again, showing inherent conflict-of-interest in the AG defending Obama's citizenship issues..)


Maybe a clever Plaintiff party could leverage this statute into deciding the eligibility issue from another angle:
§ 1501. Certificate of diplomatic or consular officer of United States as to loss of American nationality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html



see also:
§ 1642. Verification of eligibility for Federal public benefits
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
Obama's various federal benefits, i.e., wages, medical, pension, etc., cannot be received by any "alien"
"proof of citizenship" required under (a)(2) thereunder, but admittedly maybe a stretch to implement...
also, add any federal benefits being received by Michelle Obama, and by his two daughters, even?...
see also:
§ 1644. Communication between State and local government agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Service
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html


from United States Code, TITLE 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure:


Oh, on that many inherent conflicts-of-interest by the Atty Gen in representing Obama over citizenship issues?
So, after knowing the above statutes that specify when and when not, then see:
§ 528. Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
(throw the bum, "AG-elect" Eric Holder, OUT OF OFFICE!)
see also:
§ 530B. Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...0---B000-.html
see also:
§ 547. Duties (of all of the U.S. attorneys)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html
and, see also (kewl!):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


Referenced several times above, can be used against Obama, or ANY other federal official...
§ 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


And, don't ever forget about the awesome power and flexibility of seeking any kind of WRIT:
§ 1651. Writs
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


from United States Code, TITLE 42, The Public Health and Welfare:


a little bit of creative thinking, or "connecting the dots", can be leveraged with:
§ 1971. Voting rights
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html


then also, why not go after Obama's OWN (Chicago/Illinois) vote being unlawful (as an illegal alien, false citizenship, etc.), via:
§ 1973i. Prohibited acts
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3---i000-.html
see especially paragraphs (c) and (d) thereunder, like CONCEALING MATERIAL RECORDS!!!
see also, and *think* while reviewing:
§ 1973gg–9. Civil enforcement and private right of action
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3--gg009-.html
(to ensure "statutory standing" due to the *private right of action*...)


and likewise regarding Obama's continued concealment of records, but used under his OWN voting qualifications in Chicago, in both 2004 and 2008:
§ 1974a. Theft, destruction, concealment, mutilation, or alteration of records or papers; penalties
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4---a000-.html
and the procedure to implement (hint, use "ex rel State of Illinois"?)
§ 1974b. Demand for records or papers by Attorney General or representative; statement of basis and purpose
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4---b000-.html
and, so, of course, the jurisdictional hook:
§ 1974d. Jurisdiction to compel production of records or papers
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4---d000-.html


While, all sorts of different "teams" and "organizations" including Obama in them can be arranged/claimed/accused under
§ 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html
especially paragraph (3) thereunder..
AND which therefore gives another *original jurisdiction* to the federal court under:
Title 28, § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
along with the obligatory Section 1983 civil rights claims, of course...


from United States Code, TITLE 44, Public Printing and Documents:

includes the mandates regarding all "Presidential Records" - see all info/ammo at very top.


from United States Code, TITLE 50, War and National Defense:


Can we spell all of the different names of the "radicals" associated with Obama, both prior and present, stir in a little Acorn soup, allege the basic, obvious facts on paper, and leverage this, even? The skilled legal practioner can surely do it:
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV — COMMUNIST CONTROL
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._23_20_IV.html


And, just for good measure, everything you wanted to know about the new Presidential declaration of National Emergency regarding the swine flu, or H1N1 derivative, and including how and when to terminate any national emergency:
CHAPTER 34 — NATIONAL EMERGENCIES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._50_10_34.html

---

Heck, people, all of that is JUST from poring through ONLY the entire United States Code (USC). What if someone took the time to sift through *the entire* Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), maybe research the available Secret Service documentation, manuals, and etc., or the same sets of endless rules and regulations from other relevant federal agencies/departments? What if Obama is breaking the law - again - every time he flies out of the country, and then "tries to re-enter" our Nation? Do you get the point? The age-old adage is that "no man is above the law", and, yet, people think the cliche is true, that high government officers can merely *get away* with acting like they are "above the law" - yet, I tell you the simple truth: the higher a government official is in rank, the more and more rules, regulations, laws and other authorities that exist in relation to their position, and they have, effectively, even more and more "leashes" snaring them down.. watching their every move. Indeed, I would call Obama the man who is "most UNDER the law" in America, actually... every Presidential candidate must be *necessarily* prepared to accept that role for his or her entire term of office... to be the most-leashed public servant that there is... to be subject to intense scrutiny... and, via 'on paper', i.e., accountable to the greatest amount and numbers of variously written laws...


The point is, Patriots of the United States of America, that there are various EASY and COMMANDING ways, already in full force of law, with which to obtain the "eligibility" records sought, or to find no sufficient records exist, and bring an end to this utter nonsense of a circus, if only a **comprehensive** review of the matters be done and actually implemented.


REPEAT OF SUMMARY:

The law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple times and multiple ways, that:
a) the AG *cannot* represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his nationality/citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the *prosecuting* side against Obama, if the AG is involved at all...
b) the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either...
c) there are various statutory standings provided for even "mere" individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.
d) Obama's "Presidential records" are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7 million spent so far... plus interest and penalties).
e) additionally, there are all sorts of federal agencies/heads to go after Obama's eligibility through, by statutes.


ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES & ARGUMENTS:

Lastly, let me also point out and ardently remind of these important items to consider into the mix:

1) - Clinton was held in contempt by a federal court, while he was still the President, ergo, jurisdiction exists:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5671/Cont...t-Clinton.html
(See also, most especially, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Jenness v. Fortson, Bush v. Gore, Kawakita v. U.S., U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, U.S. v. Rhodes, and Scheuer v. Rhodes [a different "Rhodes" case, unrelated], all from SCOTUS)

2) - Congress, itself, routinely turns to the judiciary to resolve issues, even to sue the President:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr050199.htm

3) - EVERY President is sued in order to compel official duties, all the ... time, by business, individuals, and even other government and quasi-government entities. Just one example out of literally thousands:
http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2008...t-080717-b.pdf
and go look at the online dockets and archived opinions of the various federal court types physically located in DC...

4) - Heck, it's even "ok" to actually sue the White House Executives for scandalous allegations of outright fraud:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002...usa.dickcheney

5) - You have to remember/realize the REASON *why* Obama goes around hiding/concealing records... because that is exactly what he has been taught from birth to do... His mother obviously embroiled herself into some sort of "bend rules" stuff over Barry's birth, somehow, and necessarily with someone else.. and HAD to later tell her son at least *something* about his unusual citizenship situation, at some time in his life. Further, with all the moving around the world (her work and etc.), especially to and through countries that were NOT being friendly with the United States, he was also taught through childhood NOT to have too much respect for the United States, or its culture and society... That's the kind of friends and others who Obama hung around with quite often during his formative childhood, teenage, and young adult years. Also, of course, all that passing through various nations in political turmoils might typically require travelers to forge and fake documents and statements, just to avoid delays and problems.. And, later, for Barry to take a new muslim/african name while living in the United States, in order to demonstrate to his similar-thinking friends his "independence" and "repugnance" of the "establishment" level of the same United States. And, momma was right there, the whole time while Obama grew up, "explaining" away the "shortcuts" that they needed to take, just to get around and survive sometimes... teaching him, by example, to do the same thing as "needed"... Probably helping little Barry fill out student loan paperwork, too, as he prepared to enter his first college or university, right?? Is Obama hiding something in his various records? Oh, that's a given, easily. Nationality/citizenship is surely not the only thing being concealed. He very likely has taken all sorts of federal financial benefits, student and/or small business loans, congressional perks, and/or now presidential stuff, that he wouldn't even otherwise be regularly qualified for, in the first place, let alone the impostor citizen status to complicate things even that much further. Sure, he is also a Constitutional scholar himself, also taught to remember that there was the opportunity of better weath and life in America, that country he was likely daily taught to otherwise despise, but he was surely taught, and taught often, to "bend the rules" on nationality/citizenship paperwork as needed... Want confirmation? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham and there Obama's quote about his mother, who was: "the dominant figure in my formative years... The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." Oh, yeah, I am confident he is hiding more than just mere citizenship issues... And, by the way, from recent story developments, it could actually be that little Barry's mother was NOT married to his father, at all. Could it actually be that, maybe, just maybe, Ms. Dunham was *also not* a bona fide citizen of the United States, either???

6) - Mr. Berg, Dr. Taitz, and Mr. Apuzzo, especially, but along with all other plaintiffs/counsel, would do well to consider the ramifications - and power - of the first two paragraphs, paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(2), here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28...1----000-.html

7) - Sooo, what?? You get Obama thrown out of office... NOW what? What THEN? WHO becomes the next President? The answer, again, is very simple: Per the original Constitution, Mr. John McCain IS the *temporary* President, and Mr. Ralph Nader IS the *temporary* Vice-President, while a proper Re-Election is done promptly, say within 120 to 180 days of new campaigning time period allowed from date of judicial ruling, using ***distinct*** voting/balloting for the offices of President and Vice-President, and *only* those all same 2008 Prez and VP candidates run again, if they so choose to do again, but the mandatory result of the true Constitutional law and design is that you almost certainly end up with one (1) White House Executive from EACH/BOTH of the top two political parties, i.e., most likely either McCain as Prez with Hillary as Vice-Prez, or the reverse, Hillary as Prez with McCain as Vice-Prez, because of simple mathematics and the Constitutional selection process involved, i.e., the top two political strengths/parties each get one of the top two Executive positions, President and Vice-President. That's pre-12th Amendment, like it *should be* still done. But, even after the 12th Amendment (1804-1805, enacted-ratified), the campaign law hasn't been followed correctly since the 1870s, and the "newer" opportunity of "running for" Vice-President is **supposed** to be ran for independently from the balloting/voting process of the candidates for President. So, in the current state of things, the Re-Election of 2008, done under present (don't strike down the) 12th Amendment rule, we must end up with ONE of the Presidential candidates, and ONE of the Vice-Presidential candidates, but NOT necessarily, and NOT even probably or likely, being of the *same* party. In other words, under the current law in place for 200+ years, and that was suddenly ceased to be followed during the 1870s, we should have had 2008 results like: Obama/Palin, Hillary/Palin, McCain/Biden, Baldwin/Palin, Nader/Biden, or etc. - any Prez candidate that wins Prez + any Vice-Prez candidate that wins the SEPARATELY DONE race for the Vice-Presidency... Or, again, what's even easier.. simply go back to pre-12th Amendment, like it should best be done anyway (strike the 12th Amend. down), and you have no race for VP, at all, itself, but the two top Prez candidates become 1st (Prez) and 2nd (Vice-Prez) in number of votes obtained. Simple. Balanced. Elegant. It's *supposed* to always be a Joint Administration (politically) in the White House, anyway. And, that law and design and intent always was followed, too, until the 1870s... when the new mega-wealth "barons" and "tycoons" entered onto the American scene through vast new enterprises in railroads, steel, telegraphs, newspapers, etc., and began to *really* take over, in bending and stretching the political process to suit their own desires. Those damn Banksters... greed, the oldest sin of all..


But then, the Word of God - twice - clearly reminds the inescapable truth:
"You cannot serve both God and Mammon."

And, it also clearly reminds: "My people perish for lack of knowledge."

Points proven for God's Word, as always being solid truth and wisdom, once again...


CALL TO ACTION:

Especially to Mr. Apuzzo and Dr. Taitz, in respective timeline order: Regardless of filing appeal to your Circuit, you should certainly -- certainly (is everybody watching them??) -- incorporate some of the above, and file your immediate motions for reconsideration, based on newly discovered authority, etc. Mr. Apuzzo has until this coming Wednesday, November 4th to file any motion for alteration of judgment (Dismissal entered 10/21/09, ten (10) "business" days, per FRCP Rule 6(a)(2)), to file motion under FRCP Rule 59), while Dr. Taitz has the same ten business days allotted since Judge Carter's ruling was entered, and she can also slap that traitor Judge Land back with a Rule 60(b) motion, because - omg!! - even *thinking* about any *sanctions* during a *political question* case violates everything known to man... hint, hint... let alone the fact that Judge Land was outLANDish and wrong, in the first place. The above statutes under U.S. Code prove it.

To all "Obama eligibility" Plaintiffs/Counsel: Please now implement the above clear mandates of federal statutory law, and thereby take away all further notions of "discretion", "doctrine", or any other interference or delay. Command your victory. There is absolutely NO legally plausible **excuse** for Obama violating his statutory duties to make his "Presidential records" made ALL and immediately public domain. Period. End of story. Sooo, bye-bye, Mr. Obama, 'et al.'

To all "NObama" - "End The Fed" - "Go Sarah" - "Hillary" - and other supporters: Please forward out widely to all available forums/groups/etc., at least the basic "hammers" above, especially the legal mandate of Obama's "Presidential records" being made full public items for inspection/review. It is actually YOUR tireless communications/distribution work that actually gets the hooks baited, fish caught, cleaned, cooked and eaten tonight for supper. Thank you.


Yeah, that's right. I have chosen to live near poverty for years now, fighting part-time or more for restoration of America.
If you like my help, I could sure use donations, left side PayPal on http://unitedcivilrights.org, to upgrade to full-time restoration work. That would help a whole lot to get this all done, and America back on a good Constitutional course.

That way, instead of having to spend large chunks of my time working on people's individual due process and other cases out there, I could focus on nothing but restoring America's Constitutional Heritage through various legal HAMMERS actually implemented, sooner...............................

Thanks!



Sincerest Regards,
------------------------------------------
Mr. Torm Howse
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Instructor,
United Civil Rights Councils of America
http://unitedcivilrights.org
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Trustee,
Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - US
http://paao-us.com
Founder, Owner, President,
The FIDO Network
http://fidonetwork.com
General Contact:
P.O. Box 68665
Indianapolis, Indiana 46268
(317) 286-2538 office (888 ) 738-4643 fax
indianacrc@earthlink.net


Increase Your FAITH!

http://www.unitedcivilrights.org/uscode-v-obama.html

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

I cannot prove the following in court, but it is the simplest, non-contrived explanation which corresponds to the known facts, motive, and opportunity. There is no known evidence to disprove it, except the proven-fabricated documents which back the Barack Obama II birth myth.

In 1977, Madelyn Dunham had to provide young Barry with a fake SSN to avoid any Social Security Administration cross-checking of the non-hospital birth registration of a birth at Kapi'olani Hospital against the birth records at Kapi'olani Hospital, which has denied having any record of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama ever being a patient there. With the ready advice of Communist Frank Marshall Davis on how to create a fake identity, Mrs. Dunham used her volunteer position at the Honolulu Probate Judge's office to lift from the records of the deceased a SSN which had not yet been filed as deceased with the SSA. That deceased person was Harrison J. Bounel of Connecticut and New York, who had just recently died in Hawaii.

Years later, after Mr. Obama acquired from Tony Rezko the 5046 S. Greenwood property in southside Chicago, that address was recorded along with Mr. Obama's assumed SSN beginning with "042". Thus Harrison J. Bounel (deceased), the true owner of that SSN beginning with "042", posthumously acquired an address of 5046 S. Greenwood in Chicago.

Mr. Obama was using Harrison J. Bounel's SSN beginning with "042" as recently as three years ago, which his publicly posted tax return for 2009 corroborates.

At FreeRepublic:

Originally Posted by so_real

Why has [Chief Justice] ROBERTS, and not some other judge, put this case in conference? What is going ON in this court?

The plaintiff requests the conference of the Supreme Court Justice of his choice - in this case, Justice Kennedy first, and then Chief Justice Roberts.

Why C.J. John Roberts? And why Justice Anthony Kennedy before him? It was Atty. Orly Taitz who directed the plaint to these two Supreme Court Justices. One or the other must be on board with Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, for Noonan et al to proceed to oral arguments. If both had refused, it would have been pointless to petition Justice Scalia, Thomas, or Alito to bring up Noonan et al v. Bowen, only for it to be denied in conference. Better that the case be quietly ignored by two than publicly denied by six.

But for Noonan et al to win, both C.J. Roberts and Justice Kennedy must rule for the plaintiffs. So it makes sense to address the plaint to the two Justices in the balance, eliciting their support in order to win them over.

Originally Posted by Venturer

Obama owns 5 votes on the court. We all know that.

No, not all of us "know" that, as is evidenced by the old saw, "The Constitution means whatever Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy says it means on any given day." Justice Kennedy is the swing vote on the Court. He is not a conservative like Justice Scalia, but he is no Justice Ginsburg either. Remember, it was Justice Kennedy who voted against the Unaffordable Obamacare Act, and it was C.J. Roberts who caved.

Keep praying and faint not - keep fasting and give up not! Remember, even the American Revolution was only won at the last hour, and that only because bad weather prevented Gen. Cornwallis from escaping by sea. Even the salvation of the world, dead in trespasses and sin, seemed to be a lost cause, with the Savior crucified, dead, and buried, and His disciples scattering - until God, the Father and the Holy Spirit, returned life to its Author, Jesus, the Life Himself. God specializes in raising the dead, even the dead country, when it is most obviously beyond the power of man to do so.

I don't recall Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama, Jan. 29, 2012, being documented here, or even mentioned. Sibley was a write-in candidate for President of the U.S. in 2012.

EX REL SIBLEY v OBAMA (USDC D.C.) - First Amended Certified Petition for Writs Quo Warranto... Etc.

Advisory: DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:

if you have suicidal or homicidal tendencies;
if you tend to act out antisocially under stress or lash out when provoked;
if you ever have problems keeping anger under control;
if you have only one remaining felony before your third strike;
if you are operating hazardous machinery or driving a vehicle;
if you ever drive too fast or aggressively under pressure;
if your plate is full and you can't handle even one more problem right now;
if you ever abuse family members, co-workers, or service workers;
if you have had more than one drink within the past two hours;
if you have a personal or family history of stroke or heart attack;
if you have stomach ulcers, acid reflux, nausea, or similar digestive tract problems;
if you are involved in a project that requires focus and clear thinking;
if you are making life decisions that might be twisted by a dark outlook, cynicism, or pessimism; or
if you are talking with your spouse at this moment.

If ANY of the above applies to you, do not proceed beyond this point.
Close this browser window NOW, or go to another web page.

STOP - - - STOP - - - STOP - - - STOP - - -

Originally Posted by Atty. Orly Taitz

Press release: clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings; they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

Posted on | February 17, 2013

Law offices of orly taitz

29839 santa margarita ste 100

Rancho santa margarita ca 92688
orly.taitz@gmail.com
orlytaitzesq.com

02.16.2013
Via Federal Express
Attn. Congressman Bob Goodlatte
Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE

2309 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5431
Fax: (202) 225-9681


PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO SUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACE, AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.


02.16.2013.

Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

On 12.11. 2013, Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ. filed an application for stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

On 12.26.2012, Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated, “Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original application…” [T]hese copies were supposed to be forwarded to [the] 9 individual justices, [the] Library of Congress, and [the] National Archives.

Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies; [therefore,] 5 justices never got the application, so, clearly, they could not discuss the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, [a] photograph of the original box in which 5 copies were sent back, as well as the photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as evidence.

Moreover, on 02.12.2013, Taitz traveled to Washington, DC, and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin. She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings [would] be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

The clerks’ office never docketed the Supplemental Brief (Exhibit 2 Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court), and sent it back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief [either].

Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2).

Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 2013, in a conference of all [of] the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case came from the Supreme Court of California and was brought by Presidential Candidates: Edward Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, and Keith Judd against the Secretary of the State of California, seeking to stay the certification of the votes for the candidate for the U.S. President Barack Obama due to the fact that the aforementioned candidate committed fraud when he provided his declaration of the candidate and when the Democratic party submitted the certificate of the nomination, due to the fact that Barack Obama is not eligible for the position, as he is not a Natural born U.S. citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The declaration of the candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, stolen Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, use of a name that was not legally his, use of Indonesian citizenship, and based on aiding and abetting by corrupt governmental officials. [The] most notable example of criminal aiding and abetting was signing by the chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii Brian Schatz a falsified OCON (Official Certificate Of Nomination of a candidate), where the usual wording, “eligible according to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution,” [was] removed in order to accommodate ineligible Obama.

Plaintiffs provided the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the United States with over 100 pages of official records, sworn affidavits of senior law enforcement officials and experts, showing that Barack Obama is:

1. A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Francis[kus] Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a citizen of Indonesia, Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.
   
   
2. Obama is using [a] last name not legally his. Plaintiffs provided this court with the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, deceased mother of Barack Obama, showing that he is listed under the last name Soebarkah in her passport. He was removed from her passport in August of 1969 pursuant to the request and sworn statement of Ms. Dunham and signed by the U.S. consul in Jakarta, Indonesia. As the requirement for removal, as listed in the passport, is obtaining a foreign allegiance, it is believed that Barack Obama Soebarkah was removed from his mother’s passport when he obtained his Indonesian passport. Barack Obama cannot serve as a U.S. President [because] the legal entity Barack Obama does not exist. The only legal entity based on the only verifiable record is Barack Obama Soebarkah.
   
   
3. Obama does not have a valid U.S. birth certificate. Plaintiff provided affidavits from Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Joseph Arpaio, Investigator [Mike] Zullo, [document imaging and forgery] experts Felicito Papa, Douglas Vogt, [and] Paul Irey, showing that the image posted by Obama on Whitehouse.gov is a computer generated forgery. When there is a question of authenticity of a document, the only way to authenticate [it] is to conduct expert evaluation of the original document. [The] Registrar of the State of Hawaii, [the] Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii, and [the] Director of Healthin charge of the Health Department were obstructing justice and absolutely refused to comply with any subpoenas and produce the original 1961 birth certificate, and as such, there was never any authentication of the alleged birth certificate. After 4 years of obstruction of Justice, it is clear that the Hawaiian officials have nothing to show, and [a] genuine 1961 birth certificate for Barack Obama simply does not exist.
   
   Obama does not have a valid Selective Service certificate. Based on the affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo, [the] alleged copy of Obama’s Selective Service Certificate is [a] COMPUTER GENERATED FORGERY. In this supplemental brief, Plaintiffs are providing additional evidence, a sworn affidavit from the Chief Investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the U.S. Coast Guard (ret.), and former special agent of the DHS Jeffrey Stephan Coffman, who attested under the penalty of perjury that Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration is a forgery.
   
   Plaintiffs submitted with their TRO and complaint the Affidavits of Sheriff Arpaio and Investigator Zullo, and as a supplement, an affidavit of the Chief Investigator of the Special Investigations of the U.S. Coast Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman. Based on those affidavits, Obama’s alleged application for the Selective Service is a forgery. According to 5 USC § 3328, every man born after 1959 has to register with the Selective Service, and [he] cannot work in the executive branch if he did not register with the Selective Service.
   
   
   (a)An individual—
   (1) who was born after December 31, 1959, and is or was required to register under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 453); and
   (2) who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the individual,
   shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an executive agency.
   
   
   As Obama claims to [have been] born in 1961 (without a valid birth certificate we don’t even know when he was born), he had a duty to register with the Selective Service. A forgery does not represent a registration, [and] as such, Obama is not eligible to be working in the executive branch of the U.S. government. He is not eligible to be a President in the White House or a janitor in the White House, and it is a duty of this court to exercise its jurisdiction to rule Obama not constitutionally eligible.
   
   
4. Obama’s 2009 tax returns posted by Obama himself online showed him using a CT [Connecticut mailing address] Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which failed both E-verify and SSNVS. Affidavit of investigator Albert Hendershot provided herein as an exhibit showed [that this SSN was] issued to Harrison (Harry ) J. Bounel, born in 1890 in Russia, immigra[ted] to the United States, presumed to be deceased, whose death was either not reported to the SSA or deleted from the computer system by a treasonous and criminally complicit employee of the SSA. Due to Obama’s use of a stolen SSN, he is not eligible to work anywhere in the United States, not in the Federal Branch, not in any other branch, not in the private sector, not even to pick tomatoes or clean toilets. Based on his use of a stolen SSN, the only thing Obama is eligible to is [an] at least 18 month prison term and deportation. For that reason alone, the Supreme Court of California erred in denying the application. This court has to either grant the application or remand it back to the Supreme Court of California for reconsideration.

315 MILLION U.S. CITIZENS DEMAND TO KNOW, WHO IS COMMITTING TREASON AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE USURPATION OF THE U.S. PRESIDENCY? IS IT DONE BY 9 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, OR BY THE STAFF ATTORNEYS AND CLERKS OF THE COURT WHO HAVE HIDDEN THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE FROM THE JUSTICES?

Justices Antonin Scalia, in his book Making your case (p.77), described a process of triage in the Supreme Court. [H]e wrote, “Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that judges don’t like to spend a lot of time deciding what to decide. Indeed in most courts they won’t even read the brief in support of your petition, but will rely on summaries (or on the selection of particular briefs) by law clerks. And law clerks don’t like to spend much time on this job either.”

Unfortunately, the clerks do more than summaries. Taitz, counsel for the plaintiffs, submits as Exhibit 3 a recent correspondence with the Supreme Court in regards to case Taitz v Astrue, USCA District of Columbia Circuit no. 11-5304, where Taitz caught the employees of the Supreme Court actively obstructing justice and tampering with the documents submitted to the Supreme Court. Taitz provided the court with Federal Express receipts showing packages received by the Supreme Court and signed for by the employees of the Supreme Court, but never docketed and hidden from the Justices of the Supreme Court by the employees. These employees of the court were not appointed by the President, were not confirmed by the Senate, they never took an Oath of Allegiance, and nobody knows where their allegiance lies.

This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously, a case Lightfoot v Bowen A-084524, by the same attorney, Taitz, was deleted from the docket of the Supreme Court on inauguration day, January 21, 2009, ostensibly to give an impression that there are no more challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Only after the enormous pressure from the public, media, State Representatives and sworn affidavits from attorneys, the case was reentered in the public docket. Clerk in charge for STAYs Danny Bickle repeatedly made incorrect statements claiming that all files were deleted due to some type of computer malfunction, which was not the case. Later, in March of 2009, during a meeting with attorneys and book signing in Los Angeles, Taitz was able to discuss the case with Justice Scalia, who was absolutely clueless that the case even existed, even though, according to the docket, he was a part of the conference of justices who denied that case dealing with the legitimacy of the U.S. President, and he voted to deny that case. One can believe that a judge would forget a case about some trivial dispute, but not a case dealing with the U.S. Presidency he supposedly discussed in conference only a month and a half earlier. It is clear that the case Lightfoot v Bowen was decided by the clerks, [and] the names of the justices were printed on the order when the justices had no clue the case even existed. In a case at hand dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency, this is HIGH TREASON, for which guilty parties should be getting a life in prison or death penalty, and the nation is entitled to know who these people are.

In a different case, Rhodes v MacDonald 10A56 (entered by the Supreme Court as Taitz v MacDonald), a docket entry showing Justice Clarence Thomas denying an application for STAY was made retroactively on a weekend when Justice Thomas was thousands of miles away giving a seminar in Utah. When Taitz demanded to see an actual signature by Justice Thomas on the order to deny stay or on the cover page of the application, she was referred to Eric Fossum, the same employee who signed the denial letter in the Taitz v Astrue case, who admitted to her on the phone that there is no signature of Justice Thomas either on the order or on the cover page of the petition. As such, there is no proof Justice Thomas ever saw the petition or ever read a word written in the petition. When citizens went to the Supreme Court and requested copies of the pleadings in aforementioned cases, they were told that there are no such documents available.

Noonan v Bowen is a case which provides an undeniable evidence of usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal, a citizen of Indonesia who claims that his name is Barack Obama, who is using all forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number and a last name not legally his. Allowing this usurpation to go on is an act of HIGH TREASON. The nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of the Supreme Court, [or] clerks who hide the pleadings and sworn affidavits from justices. For that reason, plaintiffs respectfully demand signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices, the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never saw a word of [the] pleadings, and the case was “ruled upon” by court employees with unknown allegiance. Plaintiffs also demand to know the names of the court employees who summarized the case, provided it to the justices, and compiled the list of approved or denied applications. Plaintiffs, [the] U.S. Congress, law enforcement, and [the] World Community at large deserve to know who committed HIGH TREASON, who should be tried for high treason, who should be getting a penalty which is customary in such cases, which is a life in prison or death penalty.

Conclusion:

Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices, and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security [nnn-nn]-4425.

Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

Exhibit 1

--

Dr Orly TaitzESQ
29839 Santa Margarita pkwy, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
orlytaitzesq.com

The U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 12A606 for Noonan et al v. Bowen is purged as of 6 p.m. (EST), Feb. 19, 2013. This is the day when cases considered in full conference on Friday, Feb. 15th, were reported as either denied or accepted for oral arguments before the Supreme Court at a future date. Purging the docket is simply not done and is probably obstruction of justice.

Search - Supreme Court of the United States




(EDIT) At some time during the night, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 12A606 was reposted with the following information:

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 11 2012 Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 13 2012 Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 26 2012 Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 9 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Jan 9 2013 Application (12A606) referred to the Court.
Feb 19 2013 Application (12A606) denied by the Court.

Atty. Orly Taitz has receipts for her hand-carried briefs as evidence of clerical sabotage, but just getting the guilty parties fired does not get the case rescheduled for oral arguments. I'm sure the saboteur(s) will be well provided for after being fired. Normally, there is no opportunity for a third application for a conference. Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts would see fit to reschedule, IF he knew that the clerks "lost" the supplementary brief. But it will be difficult, if not impossible, for her to get a hearing above the clerk level, and then she would have to prove that someone misplaced her paperwork.

Someday not far off, a Justice, clerk of court, or some other authority figure at the Supreme Court can be expected to reject Atty. Taitz's complaint of clerical sabotage.

"You submitted the supplementary brief on Feb. 13th for a conference on the 15th? You should have allowed more time for the paperwork to be processed and delivered. That is your own fault. Case dismissed. And don't make yourself a nuisance here in the future!"

[ED.: Atty. Taitz's letter, in Hebrew and in English, is posted at
http://www.kr8.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=536506
At the end of her letter, she included links to 107 pages of exhibits as evidence.

We here on the ALIPAC Obama ineligibility thread noted years ago that, given the roadblocks the usurpation has erected to block our redress of grievances, along with the cone of silence imposed upon the U.S. (and Canada?) by the lamestream media, multilingual Atty. Orly Taitz's best recourse is to convince leaders of other countries to derecognize Mr. Obama as an Officer of the United States. Derecognition of Mr. Obama will also limit somewhat the damage and havoc he can wreak upon U.S. foreign affairs.]

Letter from Atty. Orly Taitz to Israeli Pres. Shimon Peres

DR. ORLY TAITZ ESQ
29839 SANTA MARGARITA, STE 100
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688
ORLY.TAITZ@GMAIL.COM
PH. nnn-nnn-nnnn FAX nnn-nnn-nnnn (telephone numbers redacted)
ORLYTAITZESQ.COM

02.20.2013
Open letter to the President of Israel Shimon Peres
Office of the President
3 Hanassi St., 92188 Jerusalem
Tel: 972-2-6707211
Fax: 972-2-5610037
from Attorney Orly Taitz

Dear Mr. Peres,

I understand that recently you decided to reciprocate the Medal of Freedom that was given to you by Mr. Obama and give him a Presidential award of Distinction.

Please, see the attached briefs and documents that show that Mr. Obama is engaged in the most serious crimes of elections fraud and use of forged and stolen IDs for the purpose of the elections fraud.

Mr. Obama is a citizen of Indonesia. He became a citizen of Indonesia when he resided there from 1969-1971 with his mother and step father, citizen of Indonesia Lolo Soetoro. Obama is not even his legal name. Attached passport of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, show his last name to be Soebarkah. He was born in Kenya, as evidenced by statements of the Minister of Kenya James Orengo, his own biography and the sworn affidavit from the assistant clerk of the Registrar of Hawaii. He is using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him according to official governmental agencies E-Verify and SSNVS and was actually assigned to a Jewish Immigrant from Russia Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel (Mr. Bounel was a neighbor of your cousin Betty Persky, as he resided at 915 Daly Ave, Bronx, NY between 1935-1940) and Obama/Soebarkah/Soetoro is using a computer generated forgeries claiming those to be valid copies of a genuine birth certificate and Selective Service certificate.

There are multiple legal actions in courts today seeking to remove him from office and prosecute him for elections fraud and use of forged IDs, as well as seeking to prosecute corrupt governmental officials, U.S. attorneys and Judges, who aided and abetted him. I know that you and your first cousin, Betty Persky, who under [the] pseudonym Lauren Bacall became a famous and beloved U.S. actress, escaped from Poland and were spared the Holocaust. 65 million people around the world, among them 6 million Jews, died due to actions of Adolf Hitler. Hitler’s reign of terror started in 1932 when corrupt German judges and corrupt members of [the] Reichstag looked the other way and did not take a stand against the Constitutional violations of Hitler. Not one single German judge found Hitler’s actions to be unconstitutional.

Today in the United States of America we [have] reached the level of corruption and lawlessness which resembles Nazi Germany in the 1930s, or [the] Stalinist Soviet Union of 1917-1977, or Jihadist Iran today. If [the] World Community does not rise in helping the U.S. citizens in fighting this corruption and criminality in the U.S. Government, Congress, and Judiciary, [the] USA will become another NAZI Germany of [the] 1940s.

You are planning to give Obama a medal of distinction. The question is: distinction in what? In criminality? In using all forged and stolen IDs? In fraud? In usurpation of the constitutional rights of the U.S. citizens?

You came from a family of well known Rabbis. Would they be proud of you giving a medal to a criminal? For 68 years you were married to your wife Sonia, who fought for justice during WW2 and beyond. Would she be proud of you giving a medal of distinction to a criminal?

Obama’s presence in the White House is the biggest embarrassment to this nation. You giving him a presidential award of Distinction will be the biggest embarrassment to the state of Israel.

Please, write to Mr. Obama and seek verification of the information provided in the attached pleadings before you give the aforementioned award and embarrass the state of Israel, before you give an award that will need to be taken back.

Sincerely,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

(Jan. 3, 2012) http://www.kr8.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=264403

(Jan. 14, 2012) http://www.kr8.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=271206

(Jan. 26, 2012) http://www.kr8.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=279305

(May 3, 2012) http://www.kr8.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=158675

(Feb. 20, 2013) Open letter to the President of Israel seeking his reconsideration of a medal of Distinction to Obama in light of Obama’s use of forged and stolen IDs | Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire

John Adams, the 2nd U.S. President, said,
"We are a nation of laws and not of men."
Speaking of amnesty for illegal aliens,
Pres. George W. Bush said,
"We are a nation of laws."




Perhaps being born a British Protected Citizen makes it difficult for Mr. Obama to understand "LEX REX."

Whether America really voted for change or not,
a changeling is what America really got.

A must read: Columbine Victim Asks Obama, "Whose Side Are You On?" - The Blaze

Originally Posted by stRanger, commenting on Evan Todd's letter to Mr. Obama

ANY law passed that is not in agreement [with the Constitution] is Unconstitutional and has no standing. THEY know that but they proceed anyway, which places them in open rebellion against the Law of the Land.

Folks, we need to hammer that point – it is the OBAMUNISTS who are in Rebellion and who are the Terrorists, NOT US. THEY are trashing the Constitution. WE are defending it.

Say it aloud: The United States Government is in a state of rebellion against the Constitution and the people of America. It is the DHS and the Pentagon who have declared that law abiding citizens are TERRORISTS for upholding the Law of the Land! And that point seems to go unchallenged.

Columbine Victim Asks Obama "Whose Side Are You On?" : Freedom Outpost

How To Shut Down A Tyrant - by Bradlee Dean
"Show them the price of freedom."

The Persecution Of Obama Eligibility Activist Walter Fitzpatrick (LCDR USN-ret.), Aug. 2012

The Persecution Of Obama Eligibility Activist Walter Fitzpatrick (LCDR USN-ret.) 2, Sep. 2012

Secret Service Interrogates Obama Eligibility Activist LoneStar1776, May, 2012