Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject:
TexasBorn wrote:
PatriotofPast wrote:
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, BUT you ALL need to realize the Govt. COURTS will do NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!!
ITS THE GOVT. FOR GODS SAKE!!!!!
The only way I see this Usurper being removed is Forcibly by the Military, OR By 2 + Million people Marching on Washington and Taking The Town over.
Patriot, you aren't being a stick in the mud. You are correct. I have stated this myself several times. Truthfully, I have lost all faith in our federal government and our federal court system. It's time for stronger measures. With the way I feel at the moment, I would vote for secession here in Texas.
Let me know if they plan on doing that, I might relocate _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: May 16, 2006 Posts: 1940 Location: Getyourassoutahere, Texas
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:02 pm Post subject:
Cayla, I know, secession sounds like a whacked out idea. I have no doubt though that a call for a vote for secession would take place if Obama were to win a second term. That would be the straw that broke the camels back! _________________ ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...
William Barret Travis
Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:44 pm Post subject:
TexasBorn wrote:
Cayla, I know, secession sounds like a whacked out idea. I have no doubt though that a call for a vote for secession would take place if Obama were to win a second term. That would be the straw that broke the camels back!
I didn't say it was whacked out _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: May 16, 2006 Posts: 1940 Location: Getyourassoutahere, Texas
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject:
cayla99 wrote:
TexasBorn wrote:
Cayla, I know, secession sounds like a whacked out idea. I have no doubt though that a call for a vote for secession would take place if Obama were to win a second term. That would be the straw that broke the camels back!
I didn't say it was whacked out
Let me re-phrase...to MANY who are not politically aware it may sound like a whacked out idea You can come to Texas anytime!! _________________ ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...
William Barret Travis
Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, BUT you ALL need to realize the Govt. COURTS will do NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!!
ITS THE GOVT. FOR GODS SAKE!!!!!
The only way I see this Usurper being removed is Forcibly by the Military, OR By 2 + Million people Marching on Washington and Taking The Town over.
I am burning mad too. I can stand to look at Obama anymore. If I see him I turn the channel. This is NOT our president. As far as I am concerned, Obama, his wife Michelle and their 2 kids are imposters residing in America's White House pretending to be the First Family. And they are getting away with the biggest lie ever pulled on an entire country.
I wrote my senator yesterday telling her that I was concerned about the direction Obama is taking this country. I also demanded to know who vetted Obama and why he hasnt submitted any proof of being eligible to be president even though he has spent 1.7 million not to reveal any information. Not in those words exactly but something close. And I will keep writing her every few days until she stops sending me form letters and answers my questions herself. Maybe if more people wrote their reps we can find out SOMETHING.
Joined: Jun 29, 2005 Posts: 6366 Location: From FLA to GA as of 04/01/07
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject:
PatriotPast wrote
Quote:
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, BUT you ALL need to realize the Govt. COURTS will do NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!!
ITS THE GOVT. FOR GODS SAKE!!!!! The only way I see this Usurper being removed is Forcibly by the Military, OR By 2 + Million people Marching on Washington and Taking The Town over.
The leaders of our military aren't about to lift a finger. They have allowed for the first time a turbin into a soldier's uniform. _________________ Hey, it doesn't really matter to me, baby, everyone has got to fight to be free. You don't have to live like a refugee!--Tom Petty
Joined: May 16, 2006 Posts: 1940 Location: Getyourassoutahere, Texas
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject:
Rockfish wrote:
PatriotPast wrote
Quote:
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, BUT you ALL need to realize the Govt. COURTS will do NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!!
ITS THE GOVT. FOR GODS SAKE!!!!! The only way I see this Usurper being removed is Forcibly by the Military, OR By 2 + Million people Marching on Washington and Taking The Town over.
The leaders of our military aren't about to lift a finger. They have allowed for the first time a turbin into a soldier's uniform.
Rockfish, this is the first I've heard of this. Can you provide the source? _________________ ...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...
William Barret Travis
Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:26 am Post subject:
TexasBorn wrote:
Rockfish wrote:
PatriotPast wrote
Quote:
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, BUT you ALL need to realize the Govt. COURTS will do NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!!
ITS THE GOVT. FOR GODS SAKE!!!!! The only way I see this Usurper being removed is Forcibly by the Military, OR By 2 + Million people Marching on Washington and Taking The Town over.
The leaders of our military aren't about to lift a finger. They have allowed for the first time a turbin into a soldier's uniform.
Rockfish, this is the first I've heard of this. Can you provide the source?
Note that there are 530 comments from the military on this one. It's a hot topic. _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:26 am Post subject:
Quote:
nstead, the Army's decision follows a long-standing practice of deciding such requests on a case-by-case basis, the letter said. Farrisee said the Army had weighed Kalsi's request against factors such as "unit cohesion, morale, discipline, safety and/or health."
The army has always prided itself in loosing the individuality of the single members to form a cohesive fighting machine. This case-by-case basis is not only discriminatory to those who are not allowed to break the norm, but endangers the cohesiveness that is needed in order to save and protect lives in battle. PC has NO PLACE in the military. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Before I would criticize Judge Carter, I would like to know what pressure the mob or the Nation of Is|am brought to bear upon his wife and children and grandchildren. I wouldn't like to call out a Marine for cowardice in the line of duty - supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would first have to know for certain all the threats, etc., the varied forces of evil made to intimidate and coerce him into
1) twisting or misstating the plaintiffs' complaints, and
2) betraying We the People over technicalities.
There has obviously been intimidation and coercion which obstructed justice. How can that be brought to light and made public? Is it necessary that the intimidated and coerced person testify, even if that would trouble his own house and family? Can anyone besides Judge Carter make a case that justice has been subverted by intimidation, coercion, blackmail, or some other specific criminal skulduggery? _________________ One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.
Joined: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 657 Location: Sturgis S Dakota
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:22 am Post subject:
HighlanderJuan wrote:
TexasBorn wrote:
Rockfish wrote:
PatriotPast wrote
Quote:
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, BUT you ALL need to realize the Govt. COURTS will do NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!!
ITS THE GOVT. FOR GODS SAKE!!!!! The only way I see this Usurper being removed is Forcibly by the Military, OR By 2 + Million people Marching on Washington and Taking The Town over.
The leaders of our military aren't about to lift a finger. They have allowed for the first time a turbin into a soldier's uniform.
Rockfish, this is the first I've heard of this. Can you provide the source?
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:37 pm Post subject:
MinutemanCDC_SC wrote:
Before I would criticize Judge Carter, I would like to know what pressure the mob or the Nation of Is|am brought to bear upon his wife and children and grandchildren. I wouldn't like to call out a Marine for cowardice in the line of duty - supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would first have to know for certain all the threats, etc., the varied forces of evil made to intimidate and coerce him into
1) twisting or misstating the plaintiffs' complaints, and
2) betraying We the People over technicalities.
There has obviously been intimidation and coercion which obstructed justice. How can that be brought to light and made public? Is it necessary that the intimidated and coerced person testify, even if that would trouble his own house and family? Can anyone besides Judge Carter make a case that justice has been subverted by intimidation, coercion, blackmail, or some other specific criminal skulduggery?
I try to take comfort in the following:
Mat 10:26-27 (NIV) "There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops."
Mark 4:22 (Jer) "For there is nothing hidden but it must be disclosed, nothing kept secret except to be brought to light." _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
I had accused both Collins and Snowe of being RINOs, and it would seem there may be hope for Collins. Thank God for the recent Tea Parties and voter rebellion. _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
There has obviously been intimidation and coercion which obstructed justice. How can that be brought to light and made public? Is it necessary that the intimidated and coerced person testify, even if that would trouble his own house and family? Can anyone besides Judge Carter make a case that justice has been subverted by intimidation, coercion, blackmail, or some other specific criminal skulduggery?
Just brainstorming here, or maybe brainfogging, as I don't know where this train of thought will arrive... so don't ask me where I'm going with this. It should apply to something else besides the intimidation of Judge Carter. Maybe this unethical idea will lead to an ethical plan of action. To catch a crook may require "to think like a crook."
Even if a judge (not Judge Carter, specifically) were to adamantly oppose any local magistrate granting a warrant (and the judge would, if there were intimidation or coercion or nationwide deception), might the following apply to evidence gained as the result of a "misinformed" law enforcement officer's "Good Faith" belief that such a warrant exists?
___________________________________________________________
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Herring. Herring addressed the question whether police officers may rely in "good faith" on erroneous information (inaccurately alleging the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant against a suspect) without compromising the resulting evidence, when the source of the error is another law enforcement agency.
The Court held that the answer is yes, provided the error is not sufficiently deliberate and culpable to justify suppression of the evidence. In this column, I will examine the question and conclude that the Court erred in further extending the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule of evidence.
What "Good Faith" Means in Fourth Amendment Law
The first thing to note about good faith in the Fourth Amendment context is that, despite the connotations of the phrase in everyday life, it has nothing to do with a police officer's subjective motives or intentions. The Supreme Court has instead used the phrase to refer to the objective reasonableness of a police officer's belief in the validity or existence of a warrant that is, in fact, invalid or nonexistent.
The second important fact about the "good faith exception" is that it is not an exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement that all searches and seizures be "reasonable." It is, instead, an exception to the rule that says that when police violate the Fourth Amendment, the resulting evidence is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of the victim of that unlawful search or seizure. Accordingly, the only time a "good faith" exception becomes necessary is when police have already violated the Fourth Amendment but a prosecutor still hopes to offer the evidence resulting from that violation in criminal court against the victim of the violation.
These two points are significant because they demonstrate why "good faith" is a necessary consideration only when police rely on a warrant (or similar independent legal authorization) as a basis for a search or seizure.
.
.
.
When police violate the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, with or without a warrant, the ordinary consequence is that a judge suppresses any evidence unearthed as a result of the violation. This means that the jury will not be able to consider tainted evidence in assessing the guilt or innocence of the defendant who experienced the Fourth Amendment violation.
Evidence resulting from unconstitutional conduct is not, however, always suppressed. The Supreme Court has indicated that unlike the Fourth Amendment itself, the exclusionary rule is not constitutionally-compelled but is merely an instrument for motivating conduct in conformity with the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court has applied the exclusionary rule selectively to those contexts in which its deterrent value will be greatest.
One exception to the exclusionary rule first emerged in United States v. Leon. The Supreme Court there held that if a police officer relied in objective "good faith" on a warrant that turned out to be invalid, then the evidence obtained would be admissible at a subsequent criminal trial – despite the presumed invalidity of the warrant. The Court explained that because the exclusionary rule serves to deter police misconduct (by suppressing the fruits of that misconduct), it would make little sense to suppress evidence resulting from a magistrate's error in issuing a warrant. The magistrate is specifically not an arm of law enforcement, and is therefore: (1) not the target of the exclusionary rule's deterrent objective; (2) not likely to try to subvert the Fourth Amendment (and therefore not in need of deterrence); and (3) not responsive to the suppression of evidence, given the magistrate's lack of a stake in the outcome of an eventual criminal prosecution.
In Arizona v. Evans, the Court extended the good faith exception to a case in which there actually was no warrant, but the Office of the Clerk of Court had made an error in its record-keeping and reported that such a warrant for the suspect's arrest was outstanding. A police officer, relying on the erroneous record, carried out an arrest, and the issue of suppression arose. The Court held that despite the absence of a warrant, the evidence found as a result of the arrest would not be excluded at the suspect's criminal trial. Because the police officer had relied in objective good faith on the erroneous record, the Court held, it would be inappropriate to apply the exclusionary rule.
The Court reasoned that the party that had erred in this case, the Clerk of Court, was part of the judiciary and therefore – like the magistrate – not subject to the temptation to subvert the Fourth Amendment. Further, it noted that the exclusionary rule was never meant to regulate courts' conduct. And finally, it pointed out that court employees would have no stake in the outcome of criminal trials and therefore would not be deterred by the suppression of evidence.
The exclusionary rule, in other words, is meant only for – and effective only against – the police. If police are acting in reasonable reliance on independent, non-police, government actors, the Court determined, suppression would impose a high cost without providing much of a countervailing benefit... _________________ One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.
Joined: Jun 29, 2005 Posts: 6366 Location: From FLA to GA as of 04/01/07
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:52 pm Post subject:
Rockfish wrote:
PatriotPast wrote
Quote:
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, BUT you ALL need to realize the Govt. COURTS will do NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!!
ITS THE GOVT. FOR GODS SAKE!!!!! The only way I see this Usurper being removed is Forcibly by the Military, OR By 2 + Million people Marching on Washington and Taking The Town over.
The leaders of our military aren't about to lift a finger. They have allowed for the first time a turbin into a soldier's uniform.
Ya know, ya kinda gotta wonder about the idiot who suppsedly went crazy regarding the shootings at Ft. Hood. For too long, the security of our nation has been in the shadows. How could a possible terrorist infiltrate our military? Says a lot about the status quo, aye?
If the idiot is a terrorist, they'll never tell us..so we have to assume to a point..if this is the way the terrorists are going to infiltrate, live and then be set on their mission, we all have our workplaces to fear. Imgine, they plant an H1B here working at say, a bank. Years later afterwards, the plant is givin a call and is told what to do and where..so this bank worker goes on his mission to kill as many infidels as possible. The tradgety at Ft. Hood could be repeated.
I heard on the Sean Hannity radio show that this guy was over in the middle east and stated that islamists, most by far. all want the terrorists dead. What I'm wondering is if that is true, then the islamists in this country sure aren't making that perfectly clear..but on the other hand, you only hear about the violence and not the peaceful protests. _________________ Hey, it doesn't really matter to me, baby, everyone has got to fight to be free. You don't have to live like a refugee!--Tom Petty
Joined: May 28, 2007 Posts: 27296 Location: South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:52 am Post subject:
Understanding the Barnett v Obama dismissal
By: Devvy
November 5, 2009
Another lawsuit regarding Obama's citizenship was dismissed by a federal judge on October 29, 2009: Barnett v Obama. This immediately brought unwise threats against Judge David Carter on many web sites and blogs. While the frustration and anger continues to build each time one of these cases is dismissed, making public statements like "Carter has taken his last breath" doesn't help the situation. It might also bring those making such statements a visit from the Secret Service.
I think part of the problem is that most of us are not lawyers and it is difficult sometimes to understand these complex legal issues. This has been a learning process for so many of us. This case goes back to January 20, 2009. Orly Taitz wanted to get the lawsuit filed before Obama was sworn into office. According to the hearing transcript, July 13, 2009, page 22, Judge Carter says that Orly brought suit on January 20, 2009 at 3:26 pm. It does not state whether that is EST. Her office is in So. California (PST).
From all media accounts I could find, the swearing in took place a little before noon EST. As we all know, there was a 'flub' by Obama during the swearing in process by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, so there was a second swearing in the following day. Of course, this raised all kinds of questions regarding whether or not Obama was legally sworn in on January 20, 2009, however I believe that issue was put to rest.
From reading the court documents, there were procedural problems (service on defendant) that had to be addressed. It takes time to read all these transcripts and orders, but one must to understand the legal rulings. While Judge Carter ordered this case to go to trial on January 26, 2010, I strongly cautioned people that he still had not ruled on the defendant's motion to dismiss.
If you watch this short video clip of Dr. Orly Taitz at the 9/12 event in Washington, DC, she states that Judge Carter has ordered early discovery and that Obama must respond to her subpoenas and be in her office for a deposition within 30 days to produce a litany of records. "We can have him out of office in 30 days," rallied people to a fever pitch. But, was this a realistic forecast?
All the citizenship cases have been written about extensively on the Internet from both sides. In this particular post, John Charlton maintains that early discovery was not the product being sold to the American people:
Rumors that Carter has ordered expedited discovery are amiss
"This morning, Internet sites like Resistnet and Citizen Wells Blog are rife with rumours that Judge David Carter has granted expedited discovery in the action Barnett vs. Obama, in Santa Ana Federal Court.
"The Post & Email can confirm from first hand sources, that these rumors were based on the Referral order Carter issued yesterday and the previous court instruction regarding preparation for discovery, which should take place before the hearing on October 5th. This seems coherent with Judge Carter’s previous public statements, that procedures will be followed in the main case; which procedures did not call for expedited discovery at this time. Thus, The Post & Email can confirm that no expedited discovery has been granted in the principle action. The current dispute and ex-parte Application regard only the so-called Lavendar Document. Whether Judge Natazako will also review the Lucas Document is unclear at this time."
The Judge Natazako episode is covered in this seven page order by the judge: Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Modification of Magistrate Judge Nakazato's August 6, 2009 Order and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Nakazato; Granting Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal.
I can't find an order by Judge Carter that expedited discovery other than his comments below; see September 8, 2009 reference. Judge Carter uses the word encourages. Perhaps if one of my readers knows the link they can send it along.
If we back up a bit, there was a hearing on July 13, 2009. When I mentioned procedural problems above, you can read Judge Carter's statement beginning on page 19 regarding proper service of the defendant. Much excitement was generated out in the public domain because of comments made by Judge Carter during that hearing. See the transcript of the hearing, (page 21) where Judge Carter says he is giving Dr. Taitz "...a vehicle and an avenue to have this resolved on the merits." In other words, he was telling her to get the defendant served and move on to the next step. Judge Carter also restated on page 31 that he doesn't worry too much about procedure, but likes an open door courtroom "concerning the merits."
Everyone wants the case heard on its merits (Obama's dual citizenship) and that is the beauty of the Quo Warranto:
§16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.
In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead "not guilty" as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3544; 1981 Ed., § 16-3544.)
In Judge Carter's Order Setting Scheduling Conference (September 8, 2009), he makes this statement: "Unless there is a likelihood that upon motion by a party the Court would order that any or all discovery is premature, the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the Scheduling Conference. The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of Rule 26(a) and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be produced in the early stages of discovery, because at the Scheduling Conference the Court will impose tight deadlines to complete discovery." (See here, page 2).
Two days later, September 10, 2009, the defendants in the case filed an ExParte Application for Limited Discovery over the pending and upcoming hearing, October 5, 2009; you can read it here.
At this time, I do not know if any discovery was actually undertaken before the case was dismissed. But, I do know that a tremendous amount of hope was given, only to be taken away.
This is Judge Carter's ruling on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss that has caused such rage. The issue of standing is raised and on page 25, Judge Carter explains the Quo Warranto and that it must be filed in Washington, DC. He is correct if you read the Quo Warranto statute. Judge Carter simply cannot go around the jurisdiction issue in §16-3501. Well, he could, but in my humble opinion, it would be reversed on appeal filed by the defendants.
Judge Carter was not kind to Orly in his 30 page decision; see pages 28-29. In her own defense, Orly has posted her response in the form of a Declaration; see here. Regarding the individual named in items 8-10 in Orly's declaration, Larry Sinclair, he has posted his rebuttal to Orly's claims.
Orly also raised the issue in court regarding possible fraud by Obama and SSNs (social security numbers). See this transcript, page 8. Orly posted the findings by these investigations from national data bases some time ago on her web site. Because they were not in any particular order, I took many hours and separated them. Those files are below and list all the names, variations and addresses compiled by her investigators. I ran each one of them through the U.S. Postal Service's web site to at least see if the addresses existed; many did not. While I believe the investigators have the full SSNs, due to federal law, the last four numbers are not exposed.
Barack Hussein Obama
Stanley Ann Dunham (his deceased mother)
Michelle Obama
I do not know if Obama has used any of the SSNs from the aforementioned research, how many Barack Hussein Obama or Barack Obama's there actually are in this country. The same applies to the Michelle Obama file. The Stanley Dunham listings are peculiar in that they are all for a male. In a letter from licensed investigator Susan Daniels to Judge Carter, Ms. Daniels states:
"I am the private investigator who contacted Dr. Orly Taitz when I found that Barack Obama has been using a bogus social security number for years, which is a felony. I have been a licensed investigator for almost fifteen years and recognized it immediately as fraudulent."
While this may well be true, without any documentation to prove Obama used all those SSNs (For what purpose? Tax evasion, fraud regarding business transactions or campaign cash?), we just don't know. Several months ago, I had email exchange with an individual (I will not name for privacy), who believes Obama used his former home address for fraudulent reasons. This person seems to have good grounds support his allegation. However, only a full blown criminal investigation by law enforcement (like DOJ) would provide evidence.
Following Judge Carter's dismissal of the case, both Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, attorneys who represent the all the plaintiffs, indicated they will be filing an appeal. While I want Obama removed from office as badly as millions of others, I believe an appeal will meet the same fate. You might disagree. However, after watching dozens of cases get dismissed on standing issues, I am convinced, besides impeachment (of a lawfully serving president), a Quo Warranto is the legal instrument to pursue. While I have tried to find an individual who might qualify under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) as I discussed in a previous column, my efforts have not been successful to date.
Orly's plaintiff's have the option of filing new FOIAs (Freedom of Information Act request).
Orly has the option of pursuing the Quo Warranto with the District Court in Washington, DC. At this time, I do not know if she intends on doing so, but that statute was written specifically to remove a usurper. Rather than wait around for an appeal, why not pursue a legal process that is available? Of course, you could file an appeal and a Quo Warranto complaint at the same time if you want.
Are there any other options available besides those above? Yes, and Dr. Edwin Vieira covered it in a column last year:
"Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign—such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they “cling.”
If an attempt at Quo Warranto fails, or one never gets filed, it may be that we have to wait until the scenario described above by Dr. Vieira comes into play.
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
many links on this post; please go to the link above if you wish to view them _________________ I'm a Conservative ~ "BOO" and According to Obama and Napolitano I am (AKA) the "Boogieman"
Devvy, as usual, you are right on target. As Leo Donofrio has been saying for quite some time, quo warranto in D.C. is the way to go, and he is credentialed in the District to do it. But LD is waiting for a client or clients who will make the case for him, a notable client with obvious standing who cannot rightly be denied on technicalities. He also needs donations, which have all been going Orly Taitz's way lately. Neither does he have her passionate motivation to singlehandedly (and pro bono) keep the United States of America from becoming the Totalitarian Socialist States of America.
I suggested to Dr. Taitz that she hire LD - who won't work with her, but who may work for her, given a free hand to do things his way - and feed him clients, with donations attached. If not LD, then maybe Mario Apuzzo could be our U.S. champion.
But don't be so critical of the unstoppable Orly Taitz. She has been misquoted, taunted, unjustly sanctioned and fined $20,000 for filing a legitimate, non-frivolous case, and abused atrociously in the courts of more judges than District Judges Land and Carter. The vilification is without merit, and it comes not so much from the judges themselves as from the Perkins Coie lawyers representing the (Chicago Machine/Mafia/Mob, Is|amist, globalist, Marxist/Maoist/communist/socialist/anarchist, abortion-profiteering/pornography-peddling/homosexuality-flouting/dope-legalizing, anti-American/anti-Christian/anti-Israel, illegal alien supporting/open borders lobbying/amnesty pushing, Democratic National Committee, with the attendant hired hitmen) criminal cabal.
Specifically, don't blame her for filing eligibility cases outside of D.C.. She is trying to get evidence officially discovered in any federal court she can, in order to bring the facts to light before any judge who still has the authority to do something and the courage to stand against the regime.
Judge Carter wrote:
The writ of quo warranto must [False - QW "may"] be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.
Dr. Taitz was filing quo warranto for Barnett v. Obama in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with precedent: QW for federal office in D.C. has been allowed in California in the past because of the remoteness of the District of Columbia from the plaintiffs, which made it a hardship for them, but not for the local U.S. Attorneys representing the defendant, who did not need to be present. Dr. Taitz already filed a related quo warranto suit in D.C., which was scoffed out of court. Been there, done that, got the tar and feathers to prove it. Mario Apuzzo's QW suit in the District met the same fate. Dr. Taitz discusses her QW experience, as hindered by US AG Eric Holder, at length here.
Reminds me of Cook et al v. Goode et al in Columbus, GA. Dr. Taitz related the decision of legal counsel for Adm. Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the military cannot investigate and verify the legitimacy of the Commander-in-Chief, because he is a civilian and not subject to the UCMJ. Minutes later, U.S. District Judge Clay Land agreed with the Army attorney, that an Article 138 for Redress of Grievances is the proper procedure for verifying legitimacy in this and every other case which questions a military chain of command. "La la la la la - we don't hear you! La la la la la..." I was there. Heard it myself. Useful idiots, stuck on stupid.
Leo Donofrio wrote:
The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3502 of the QW statute allows any 'third person' or citizen, and section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an 'interested person' to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.
That is true, Mr. Donofrio. But money is tight now, courtroom resources are limited, and time is of the essence. When the game isn't going your way, you have to cut your losses. You have to count the investment necessary to proceed and the possible return here and now, weigh it against the ROI if you should use your funds another day in a more copacetic environment, calculate the respective probabilities and make your final decision about whether to throw good money after bad or to count it a loss and start over from scratch, and then act, knowing that if you lose, the kibitzers will have known all along what you should have done.
When you're in enemy territory, in a crooked card game that is widely known to be rigged against you, you also have to be cautious about when to play your hand. You gotta know when to hold back; you gotta know when to fold. You also have to know who is packing heat and where are the exits, in case you win. The important thing is to stay alive and be able to come back another day and win your money back.
You may (or may not) know what cards Dr. Taitz was holding, but you couldn't measure the ebb and flow in the courtroom or see the white of the judge's eyes.
Quoting District Judge Carter's opinion in Barnett v. Obama, Leo Donofrio wrote:
C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must [Must? It ain't necessarily so! The correct operative verb is "may"] be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
"Must be granted." Riiiggghhhttt. And if they don't? Who's going to make the court grant leave to a third party citizen to pursue QW when de facto powers-that-be lean on the court to misconstrue justice or ignore you altogether?
If you can persuade Orly Taitz to return to the D.C. lions' den for a QW section 3503 "interested person" petition, I encourage you to do so. Send her a check and request that she continue that effort. But keep in mind that AG Eric Holder stalled before for eight ( 8 ) months on her original QW petition in D.C., and this case is already so ripe that it's rotten and smelling to high heaven.
Dr. Taitz wrote:
You are welcome to write to [AG Eric] Holder. I guarantee you, he’ll do nothing.
Dr. Taitz seeks a D.C. QW to be filed remotely in another U.S. District Court in the stead of the D.C. District Court. The QW Avenue in D.C. is blockaded by so much trash that even SuperWoman, or Lady Liberty herself, might not be able to clear it. Yes, QW in D.C. is the proper venue, but it is unavailable because of obstruction of justice by the minions of the Emperor Who Has No Birth Certificate.
Please, before criticizing Dr. Taitz for doing whatever she finds she can do or for going wherever she finds an open door, check the steps she has trod to arrive at that action. Whatever you or I can dream up, she has probably already tried. She's a busy woman, but she is only human, and in her haste, she makes mistakes. "When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable," (Proverb 10:19a). At least she doesn't make the mistake of "deer-in-the-headlights paralysis," failing to act in a crisis.
Sincerely in Christ,
MinutemanCDC_SC _________________ One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC on Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:08 pm; edited 6 times in total
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:24 am Post subject:
Interestingly enough, BHO has told the world to stay away from Michelle Obama, and, in general, the world has stayed away from her. While reading Airborne's copy of Devvy's article and the original on Devvy's site, I came across a link to address search results for Michelle Obama (apparently not including her maiden name Michelle LaVaughn Robinson), and it tweaked my curiosity a bit.
I acknowledge that Michelle is NOT POTUS, but she has injected her opinions into the political realm, and so I'm a bit curious about the address list. The list does not verify that a specific address is for THE Michelle Obama, and there are no dates listed (which I would have liked to have seen).
Is this something that would be interesting to investigate further? _________________ 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
I have been one of her staunch supporters over the past year. If you're referring to my last column, I wasn't critical of Orly, but the screw up in the original service is what caused the case to drag on forever.
That isn't being critical, it is simply a legal fact. The defendants weren't served for months instead of a few days.
If there is a QW by her, where is the complaint and when was it submitted to the District Court in Washington, DC? To my knowledge, there is no complaint under a QW filed by Orly's clients.
3. Holder redefines the word corrupt and he won't do anything as I have pointed out in many columns. She doesn't need him. Under the statute, if the AG or US Attorney fail to act, an 'interested person' can then petition the court. The problem is the definition of interested person under Newman. That is the tough part.
[Here is a reference about Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell (1915) in the U.S. Supreme Court.]
It's not about money. Filing the complaint is a couple hundred bux. The complainer might have to post a bond, but a percentage can get it done, maybe $1500. Then we wait and see what the 3-judge panel decides. If writ is granted by the court (I believe that is the proper term), then the government takes over and it goes to trial. Neat, clean and it is the proper legal instrument to use.
The statute (QW) must be tested and Orly has a couple of clients who might - IF the complaint is done right - qualify under Newman. Not military or state legisltors, but Keyes and other candidates. But, like I said, the complaint has to be worded just so or it will get kicked down.
In the meantime, this mess drags on and on and on.
[And nitpicking judges (under coercion) aren't expediting things a bit.
They strain at typographical gnats and swallow an Is|amist camel from a globalist goblet.]
Devvy
[The matador keeps the American people focused on sports, politics, and Iraq, while the NWO takes over.] _________________ One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.
It is possible never before has an American president taken so many pains to hide so much of his background – to the point of hiring lawyers to race around the nation fighting anyone who tries to access his life's records.
But it appears the concerns some doubters have expressed over Obama's Selective Service registration form may not be fully justified.
The charges include a claim the form signed by Obama was created in 1990, not 1980; the postal date stamp had incorrect information on it, and there were a couple of other discrepancies.
The allegations, while significant, may have become lost in light of the federal lawsuits being presented to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging Obama's presidency and other issues that developed.
But several experts say there is little reason for alarm over this document.
One allegation involved the postal date stamp used on Obama's Selective Service form. It's been reported the form has the abbreviation "USPO" for United States Postal Office, even though when Obama's form was completed in 1980 the agency was using the abbreviation "USPS" because of a change to the name "United States Postal Service" several years earlier.
The National Postal Museum directed inquiries to Dick Sine, one of the top postal historians in the country who wrote a stamp column for the New York Times and authored "Stamp Collecting for Dummies." He reported that it is entirely possible that a clerk was using an outdated stamp.
"Personally, my general rule of thumb is, 'If a clerk might have an outdated device still lingering around someplace with research (especially at a smaller PO) sooner or later it is going to show up on some piece of mail it is not supposed to," Sine responded via e-mail.
Another expert contacted agreed with Sine, "I know that there were still some post offices in Texas using older DCDS date stamps with the USPO instead of USPS in the time frame you mentioned. There was no requirement that I am aware of for a postmaster to replace his date stamp, and many did not."
Indeed, the experts confirmed some locations were using "USPO" stamps as late as 2000, 20 years after a Hawaiian post office stamped Obama's registration form with a "USPO" stamp.
This theory of Dick Sine and an unnamed expert has one small problem: this specific Post Office.
Waikiki Station in Honolulu, Hawaii, is hardly some off-the-beaten-path, hole-in-the-wall outpost in the west Texas desert.
2330 Kalakaua Ave. is on the main drag in Waikiki Beach, which, if not as trendy as Malibu, certainly ranks close to it.
The Kalakaua Post Office is less than two blocks from the ocean at Waikiki Beach, and only a block or so from the Sheraton Royal Hawaiian. This is not some cobwebbed, tin-roofed shack on a remote Polynesian atoll that time forgot after V-J Day, Aug. 15, 1945. In 1981, Waikiki Postal Station would have been a showcase for all the latest and shiniest mail technology. Waikiki was no place for an obsolete USPO hand stamp to linger in use for ten years after the U.S. Postal Service conversion.
Take another, closer look at the year on the USPO stamp; it is altered or forged.
The "19" is missing, which indicates that the first two digits of the year were Photoshopped out.
The "8" is chopped off at the top, unlike any real hand stamp or embosser.
If the "8" had not been chopped, it would have nearly intruded into the date field, the "29".
Unlike the numbers on a genuine hand stamp, this "8" and this "0" originally were not the same height.
The "8" had to be cropped to match the height of the "0".
The "8" is upside down (the top circle is larger than the bottom circle).
It appears that an "8" and a "0" from other documents were (sloppily) trimmed and joined to create "08", rotated 180°, and pasted over the year field, overwriting what was originally there, which was probably "1970" or an earlier year. If the font of the old "19" did not match that of the new "80", that may explain why the original "19" was removed.
The registration form does not have a "II" after Barack Obama's name, which would have invalidated it, because it would amount to a registration of his father. For the form to be legal, he had to register with his full legal name, Barack Hussein Obama II. Without the "II", there is confusion about who was registering: the father or the son. But that wouldn't have stopped the registration from being filed, so, never mind.
WorldNetDaily wrote:
Another allegation suggesting the forged document theory is that the Document Locator Number (DLN) at the top right of the registration form – 0897080632 – means the form was produced in 2008 and not in 1980, the year Obama signed it. This is based on the fact the first two digits are "08."
However, Will Ebel, the former director of the Selective Service under Ronald Reagan, and Dick Flahavan, the current associate director of the Selective Service who has served the government since the Reagan years, agreed that the number was not a decider.
"Registration forms created prior to the establishment of the Data Management Center had a DLN configuration different than the current format. The first three characters (089) of the DLN for this form designate that this form was key entered by one of the keying centers of the Internal Revenue Service," they concluded.
The experts reported the "089" number, instead of identifying a date, indicated where the form was keyed in, becoming part of a sequential system only years later.
Another claim is based on the 10 digits of Obama's form, while others have 11.
The government reports at the signing by Obama in 1980, Document Locator Numbers were only 10 digits, an identifier that later was changed by the Selective Service to be 11 to help track them.
"The field was later expanded to 11 digits to accommodate the decade change in 1990 and subsequent decades to avoid duplication of some Document Locator Numbers," Flahavan said.
There are numerous unresolved discrepancies in the Barack Obama Selective Service registration posted at DebbieSchlussel.com.
The most glaring to me is the difference between the Document Locator Number on this registration card
and the DLN above, on file at the Selective Service System’s Data Management System in Chicago.
That inconsistency of the two records indicates that the record on file in the system in Chicago may have been "injected" into the database by someone in the system in Chicago, in cooperation with the Chicago Machine.
If only Quarles Harris could have testified about the Barack Obama passport file tampering...
WorldNetDaily wrote:
Another claim is that the form signed by Obama has a date reference that could indicate it was signed Feb. '90, not Feb. '80, but Flahavan reports while the paper version of Obama's form may be hard to read, the microfilm image of the document clearly shows the date of the form as Feb. '80.
There are other deal-breakers besides the "Feb. '80" printed on the form, which Mr. Flavahan claimed is clearly visible on the microfilm. Mr. Flavahan then failed to reckon with the fact that government records show that the Selective Service Agency canceled its previous order for "Feb. '80" SSS Form 1's, so that no such forms were printed in February of 1980.
The claims that Obama's signature is dated a day after the postal stamp also remains inconclusive for analysts who reviewed it, who pointed out a clerk can forget to change a stamp, or a person can mistake the day when signing.
Flahavan also reports questions about a possible conflict between Obama's signing date in Hawaii and his attendance at Occidental College is not verifiable. He said the records seem to indicate Obama signed on July 30, 1980, four weeks before classes started at Occidental, and the Sept. 4 date on a computer printout simply is when the record was added to the database.
Although the experts WND consulted explained away some of the other flaky-looking items on the card, the main ones are still problematic: the "80" on the "USPO" stamp, the irregular and inconsistent Document Locator Number on the registration card, and the "Feb. '80" on the card when apparently no "Feb. '80" version of SSS Form 1 was printed.
Miss Schlussel's research deserves better than a whitewash. Unless, of course, the Obama Enforcement Team has also gotten to WND, along with Judge David Carter and the other 30 or so judges.
Joined: May 28, 2007 Posts: 27296 Location: South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:25 am Post subject:
The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues
By Steve Baldwin, Exclusive to Western Center for Journalism
Most Americans don’t realize we have elected a president whom we know very little about.
Pictured: Barack Obama’s Autobiography, Dreams from My Father.
Pictured: Barack Obama’s Autobiography, Dreams from My Father.
Researchers have discovered that Obama’s autobiographical books are little more than PR stunts, as they have little to do with the actual events of his life. The fact is we know less about President Obama than perhaps any other president in American history and much of this is due to actual efforts to hide his record. This should concern all Americans.
A nation-wide network of researchers has sprung up to attempt to fill in the blanks, but at every opportunity Obama’s high-priced lawyers have built walls around various records or simply made them disappear. It is estimated that Obama’s legal team has now spent well over $1.4 million dollars blocking access to documents every American should have access to. The question is why would he spend so much money to do this?
The president who campaigned for a more “open government” and “full disclosure” will not unseal his medical records, his school records, his birth records or his passport records. He will not release his Harvard records, his Columbia College records, or his Occidental College records—he will not even release his Columbia College thesis. All his legislative records from the Illinois State Senate are missing and he claims his scheduling records during those State Senate years are lost as well. In addition, no one can find his school records for the elite K-12 college prep school, Punahou School, he attended in Hawaii.
What is he hiding? Well, for starters, some of these records will shed light on his citizenship and birth.
Pictured: “Scott & Barry, 3rd grade 1969” Punahou School in Hawaii.
Pictured: “Scott & Barry, 3rd grade 1969” Punahou School in Hawaii.
For example, Obama’s application to Punahou School – now mysteriously missing – would likely contain a birth certificate. And, according to attorney Gary Kreep, “his Occidental College records are important as they may show he attended there as a foreign exchange student.” Indeed, Obama used his Indonesian name “Barry Soetoro” while attending Occidental. Kreep has filed lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president and as part of his lawsuit he requested Obama’s records from Occidental. However, Obama’s lawyers quickly moved to stop Occidental from honoring this request.
Furthermore, now that at least three document authentication experts have declared the scanned “Certificate of Live Birth” Obama’s campaign team gave to a pro-Obama website to be an obvious phony; we know that he is hiding something here as well.
Over 49 separate law suits have been filed on the eligibility/birth certificate issue alone, with several of the suits making it all the way the United States Supreme Court, only to be denied a full hearing.
Pictured: Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talah
Pictured: Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talah
What’s more, there are questions about how he paid for his Harvard Law School education since, despite a claim by Michele Obama, no one has produced any evidence that he received student loans. The Obamas will not release any student loan details despite repeated requests from the Chicago Tribune. However, it appears that his Harvard education may have been paid for by a foreign source. Khalid Al-Mansour, an advisor to Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talah, told Manhattan Borough president, Percy Sutton, that he was raising money for Obama’s Harvard tuition. Incidentally, Prince Tala is the largest donor to CAIR, a Muslim group declared by the U.S. Government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist financing trial. At least three of CAIR’s leaders have been indicted for terrorist activities. Al-Mansour’s admission opens up speculation as to whether Muslim interests have assisted Obama’s career in the hope he would eventually be in a position someday to promote their interests.
More recently, it was discovered that Obama’s Selective Service card may have been doctored. Federal law requires all American males to register for the Selective Service (the draft) in case a major war broke out. Blogger Debbie Schlussel has discovered solid evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was submitted not when he was younger as required, but rather in 2008 and then altered to look older. Indeed, the forgers forgot to alter the “Document Location Number” which shows that it is clearly a 2008 form. This is fraud and it’s a felony and Schlussel allegations are backed up by Stephen Coffman, a former high-ranking Federal agent. Moreover, the document shows a September 4th, 1980 date and the location of the transaction as Hawaii, but at that time Obama was thousands of miles away attending Occidental College in Los Angeles.
Pictured: Barack Obama’s 2008 Selective Service Card. “Blogger Debbie Schlussel has discovered solid evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was submitted not when he was younger as required, but rather in 2008 and then altered to look older.”
Pictured: Barack Obama’s 2008 Selective Service Card. “Blogger Debbie Schlussel has discovered solid evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was submitted not when he was younger as required, but rather in 2008 and then altered to look older.”
The real reason why Obama probably did not submit this form as a teenager is that he assumed his Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship exempted him from this requirement. But clearly, as he grew older and entered politics, he saw that any documents revealing a foreign birth – Selective Service registration, birth certificate, school applications, etc – would be problematic if he ran for the presidency. Thus, it is not a coincidence that every document which contains information about his birth or citizenship is either missing, sealed, or has been altered.
Indeed, everywhere one looks into Obama’s background, we find sealed records, scrubbed websites, altered documents, deception and unanswered questions. Can anyone imagine for a second if John McCain or George Bush had blocked access to his school, medical, and birth records? It would have been headlines but as with everything else concerning Obama, the media has given him a pass on this.
Of all these marvels, the latest mystery and probably most perplexing is that of Obama’s social security number. It appears that Obama has multiple identities in term of possessing numerous social security numbers. Orly Taitz, an attorney who has filed numerous suits against Obama regarding his eligibility to serve as president, appears to be the first to discover this. In her suit, representing a number of military officers who are refusing to serve under an ineligible commander in chief, she hired private investigator Neil Sankey to conduct research on Obama’s prior addresses and Social Society numbers. Using Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and other public records, Sankey found around 25 Social Security numbers connected with Obama’s name.
However, it may not be as many as 25, since Sankey also searched using closely related names such as: “Barak Obama,” “Batock Obama,” “Barok Obama,” and “Barrack Obama.” There may very well be some Kenyans living in America with the same last name and a similar first name. In any case, I will exclude these records for the purpose of this research and focus only on names spelled exactly like his name. Moreover, we can verify many of the Social Security numbers as valid since they’re connected to addresses at which we know Obama resided. Needless to say, there are also a slew of address and social security numbers connected to addresses in states that Obama has no known connection to.
In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one beginning with 042 and one starting 364.
In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with 999.
There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number beginning with 485.
Pictured: 713 Hart Senate Office Building.
Pictured: 713 Hart Senate Office Building.
In Massachusetts – where Obama attended Harvard Law School – we find three addresses, all using the 042 Social Security number. After Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2005, he moved into an apartment at 300 Massachusetts Ave NW; the Social Security number attached to that address is the 042 one. Yet, three years later, Obama used a different Social Security number for an address listed as: 713 Hart Senate Office Building. This was the address of his United States Senate office. This Social Security number began with 282 and was verified by the government in 2008.
This mystery grows even stranger as other addresses and Social Security numbers for Barack Obama appear in a dozen other states not known to be connected to him. Again, I am excluding those records names not spelled exactly like his name.
Tennessee, one address with a Social Security number beginning with 427
Colorado, one address, with a Social Security number beginning with 456.
Utah, two addresses, with two Social Security numbers beginning with 901 and 799.
Missouri has one address and one Social Security number beginning with 999.
Florida has two addresses listed for his him, three if you count one listed as “Barry Obama.” One is connected to a Social Security number beginning with 762.
In Georgia there are three addresses listed for him, all with different Social Security numbers: 579, 420, and 423.
In Texas there are four different addresses listed for him, one is connected to Social Security number 675.
There are two addresses listed for Barack Obama in Oregon and one address listed for him in
the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
All told, there are 49 addresses and 16 different Social Security numbers listed for a person whose name is spelled “Barack Obama.” In some cases, the middle initial “H” is listed. If you were to expand the search to include closely related names such as: “Barac,” “Barak,” and “Barrack” Obama, you would find more than a dozen additional addresses and Social Security numbers.
Finally, the one Social Security number Obama most frequently used, the one beginning with 042, is a number issued in Connecticut sometime during 1976-1977, yet there is no record of Obama ever living or working in Connecticut. Indeed, during this time period Obama would have been 15-16 years old and living in Hawaii at the time.
Pictured: Ann, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham
Pictured: Ann, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham
Nevertheless, all this mystery surrounding Obama appears to be a generational thing. Researchers have discovered nearly a dozen aliases, at least two different Social Security numbers, and upwards of over 99 separate addresses for Ann Dunham, his mother. We do know she worked for the ultra liberal Ford Foundation but we also know she may have earned some income from pornographic poses, as evidenced by photos recently discovered by some researchers—how embarrassing. The only thing researchers are able to find out about Obama’s mother is the fact she made porn. I’m sure that’s a first for presidential mothers.
But we also know that Obama’s mother and grandparents associated with Communist Party leaders such as Frank Marshall Davis, a man who, according to Obama’s book, Dreams from my Father, was his main mentor during much of his Hawaiian boyhood (although Obama tried to disguise his identity in his book). During the Cold War, Davis was named by congressional investigators as a key member of a secretive pro-Soviet networked that existed in Hawaii at that time.
Pictured: Communist Party leader, Frank Marshall Davis.
Pictured: Communist Party leader, Frank Marshall Davis.
The lack of documents regarding Obama also extends to his mother and to his grandparents. Indeed, researchers have been unable to find marriage licenses for his mother’s two marriages, assuming she was ever legally married. Ditto goes for the marriage license for Ann’s parents. They cannot find birth certificates for her, her parents, or for even for her grandparents. Even more so, despite Obama’s boast of his grandfather’s military service, there’s no record of that either. For reasons no one knows, much of Obama’s life, his mother’s life and his grandparent’s life has been erased from the records as if they never existed.
But why would someone obtain so many Social Security numbers? According to investigators, those who create additional Social Society numbers are typically engaged in criminal activities such as Social Security fraud, tax fraud, real estate fraud, campaign contributions fraud, voter fraud and so on. While the private investigator who compiled this list says multiple social security numbers does not automatically prove there’s criminal activity involved, he states that “having said that, I have personally experienced many, many cases where such information has led to subsequent exposure of fraud, deception, money laundering and other crimes.“What is interesting to note is that Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court probate department and had access to the Social Security numbers of deceased people.
Pictured: Barrack Obama and his Grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. “Madeline Dunham was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court probate department and had access to the Social Security numbers of deceased people.”
Pictured: Barrack Obama and his Grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. “Madeline Dunham was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court probate department and had access to the Social Security numbers of deceased people.”
It is clear that more research needs to be done on this issue. The Western Center for Journalism
( http://www.westernjournalism.com) is inviting our readers to join the search for the truth. If you have any information about any of the addresses listed, we would love to hear from you. To find a complete list of all the addresses and Social Security numbers listed in the public record for Obama and family, please go to the Western Center for Journalism.
“Scott & Barry, 3rd grade 1969” Punahou School in Hawaii.
How does that work? Wasn't Barry Soetoro at Fransiskus Assisi Catholic elementary school in Jakarta in the third grade?
The WesternJournalism site, God bless 'em, added "Punahou School in Hawaii" to the caption written on the picture.
Does Barry Soetoro's friend from the 3rd grade have Indonesian or Hawaiian features?
Typically, Hawaiians are larger in stature than other people.
My guess, FWIW, is that this picture was taken at the Fransiskus Assisi Catholic elementary school in Jakarta, Indonesia. _________________ One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow we may wake up as illegals.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:44 pm Post subject:
florgal wrote:
Look in the background of the picture. Does anyone else think it looks like kid's artwork of Christmas trees?
Yes, which would fit in with a Catholic school _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Contribute/Join
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
You can come to Texas anytime!!
