Is "youtu dot be" a legitimate link to YouTube? This is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB_9mBscgog
Printable View
Is "youtu dot be" a legitimate link to YouTube? This is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB_9mBscgog
If only that could be said of every state... and the District of Columbia.Quote:
Originally Posted by ALIPAC
An Atty. Orly Taitz supporter in Georgia sees cause for bright hope on Jan. 26th
n Judge Michael Malihi's State of Georgia Administrative Court in Atlanta.
Another Atty. Orly Taitz supporter, Pat in Georgia, foresees a similar outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by an Atty. Orly Taitz supporter in Georgia
Gov. Nathan Deal (R-GA) probably has more clout in Atlanta than Valerie Jarrett.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatinGa
I just received this by email and thought many of you might like to see this...
Quote:
The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers, do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq.
Dr. Taitz, Esq. has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
I won!!! I won!!! I won!!! Judge Malihi ruled in my favor. Obama’s motion to quash my subpoena is denied! He has to appear at trial and present all the documents that I demanded to produce in my subpoena!
Posted on | January 20, 2012 | No Comments
It has been 3 years of 24/7/365 fight. I was defamed, viciously maligned by so many Obots (Obama bots), pro-Obama media thugs, by a few corrupt officials and judges. Recently even people, who claimed to be on my side turned sides and viciously defamed me and attacked me. Among them were Arlen Williams, Dean Haskins, owner of a blog Birther Summit, Ben Nelson-owner of a blog Birther Report or ObamaReleaseYourRecords, Helen Tansey -owner of a blog art2superpac and even attorneys, who should’ve had some professional ethics. Attorneys Gary Kreep and Philip Berg filed insane pleadings, saying that I tried to hire a hit man to kill Lisa Liberi, legal assistant of attorney Berg and kidnap children of a web master Lisa Ostella. It has been 3 years of total nightmare, these people were like a pack of wild dogs attacking me and coming up with each and every accusation in the book. Now I am vindicated. My legal action is with merit. We are going to trial on January 26, 2012. I issued subpoenas. Barack Obama through his attorney Michael Jablonski filed a motion to quash my subpoena and all the other subpoenas. I was attacked yet again in this motion. Judge Malihi just issued an order. Motion to quash my subpoena was denied. Barack Obama, President of the United States will have to appear in court on January 26 and comply with my subpoena and produce all the documents, that I demanded. Interesting, that two other attorneys are representing plaintiffs on similar matters: Van Irion and Mark Hatfield. They could have an opportunity to examine Obama with me, however either because I was maligned so badly or because they were scared to press the most explosive charges, these attorneys filed motions for their cases to be severed from my case. Their motions were granted. Irion’s case will be heard first. He stated on the record, that his case will take only 10 minutes and will be limited to ascertainment if Obama is legitimate based on the precedent of Minor v Happerset. Obama will not be answering any of his questions. Second will be a case presented by attorney Hatfield. He, also, severed his case and did not issue any subpoenas. In his motion to sever he stated that he did not want to be joined in the same complaint with me, because he did not want to be part of a case, where I brought forward allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud committed by Barack Obama. Hatfield was saying that he was afraid that his clients will be prejudiced by such explosive allegations. Yesterday, after I filed an opposition to motion to quash, attorney Hatfield tried to follow suit by filing a notice to appear, however notice does not have as much of a force as a subpoena and I do not believe Obama will be complying with a notice, particularly since Hatfield’s complaint does not entail the same charges as mine. My case will be heard third. My case will not be limited to definition of natural born based on a case Minor v Happersett. I will be also presenting a case, showing that elections fraud was committed by Barack Obama, that he is using a forged birth certificate, stolen or fraudulently obtained Social Security number and that there is no evidence to believe that the last name he is using is legally his, due to the fact, that in his mother’s passport he goes under the name Soebarkah and in his school registration in Indonesia he went by the last name Soetoro. There is no evidence of legal change of name.
I wanted to thank people who helped me along the way with donations, who did not stick a knife in my back, like the ones mentioned before. I am asking my supporters to donate to this work, as I am paying for airfare and hotel of witnesses and a number of other expenses. Also, if you are a CA Republican please, download my nomination for the US Senate and sign and circulate it.
nomination papers
Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate2 or ObamaForgeryGate. I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting President is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the President and a number of high ranking individuals.
I feel extremely proud to be a part of this historic moment. I guess an American dream is still alive, as this subpoena was issued by an immigrant, who was raised in a communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union and came here with one suitcase with a couple of dresses, who had to study English, to study law at night, while working as a dentist and raising a family with 3 children. Only in America is this possible.
Humbly,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Motion to Quash Subpoenas
RELATED
Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing about his citizenship
http://www.alipac.us/f19/ga-judge-or...enship-248740/
Santorum in South Carolina cites the Bible, ignores Obama birther remark
http://www.alipac.us/f12/santorum-so...3/#post1252704
RELATED
Dunn's new conservative rival: a 'birther' who says Obama wants to impose Islamic caliphate
http://www.alipac.us/f19/dunns-new-c...4/#post1252706
Yes, she won the prelims, and that is worth loud and long celebration. Judge Malihi denied the defense's motion to quash her subpoena, just as he had already denied the defense's motion to dismiss the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atty. Orly Taitz
But the three trials on Jan. 26th are still anyone's to claim.
Pray that the Lord save Mr. Obama
from sin and deliver us from him.
The understanding of "natural born citizen" as being a citizen "born in the country (ius soli) of citizen parentS (ius sanguinis)" dates back to the 5th and 4th centuries BC and comes from Herodotus and Plato, who got it from others before them, back in antiquity.Posted at http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/01/..._candidac.html
A natural born Citizen is
a citizen
born in the country
of parents who are citizens.
That is the textus receptus for nbC, according to:
>>> over 2400 years of common usage in Western Civilization (except by the tyrant King George III);
>>> correspondence among the Framers of the Constitution: Geo. Washington, John Jay, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, David Ramsay, and others;
>>> the commonly understood meaning in 1787, spelled out in Emerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758 ), the text that codified (not created) the existing international law which those Revolutionary radicals recognized as definitive on nationality, citizenship, immigration, and allegiance:
“natives, or indigenes (natural-born citizens), are those
born in the country of parents who are citizens,”
“as society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise
than by the children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,
and succeed to all their rights...”
Therewith, the Framers broke away from British Common Law, John Locke, and William Blackstone on matters of "Crown and Subjects," as these do not apply to free men;
>>> Rep. John A. Bingham and Sen. Jacob M. Howard, the co-authors of Amendment XIV, which concerned the citizenship of children of non-resident aliens born on U.S. soil, and which made no mention of "natural born Citizen" whatsoever. Rep. Bingham wrote, "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
What did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the co-authors of Amendment XIV? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of Amendment XIII, added the jurisdiction clause to Amendment XIV. He wrote:
"[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
And Sen. Howard concurred.
>>> SCOTUS precedents, settled opinions, and dicta in Minor v. Happersett (1875), The Venus (1814), and Shanks v. DuPont (1830), and supporting decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (the court that interprets the Constitution) in Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor (1830), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), Elk v. Wilkins (1884), and Perkins v. Elg (1939), which judicially established this interpretation of natural born Citizen. The sole exception is Wong Kim Ark (1898 ), in which Assoc. Justice Gray made an aberrant, Tory decision, attempting to re-subject the errant Colonists to British Common Law, and, if possible, even to return the prodigal Colonies to their rightful owner, the Crown. Chief Justice Fuller dissented, saying, "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
No other U.S. Supreme Court decision has ever contradicted the above definition of natural born citizen. Even the erroneous WKA decision did not affect the definition of "natural born Citizen," but only that of "citizen from (or by) birth," extending citizenship to persons born in the U.S. of legally resident alien parents. Justice Gray overlooked the Amendment XIV requirement of being subject to U.S. jurisdiction, that is, to a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, meaning "subject to no other jurisdiction," which excludes dual citizens, who are also subject to the jurisdiction of another state or sovereignty.
>>> the commonality of this characteristic to every duly-elected President born since the Constitution was ratified in 1787... except Vice-Pres. Chester A. Arthur, who assumed the Presidency in 1881 after Pres. James Garfield was assassinated. Pres. Arthur burned his Presidential papers to hide his father's Canadian citizenship, which status was only discovered in 2008 by Atty. Leo Donofrio's researchers.
Also in 2008, while discussing S.R. 511, the non-binding resolution which declared, "John McCain is a natural born Citizen," even Democratic Senators agreed that nbC required that both parents be citizens.
On the other hand, Mr. Obama was not only born in Kenya, but his mother was not yet 19, the age required in 1961 to confer her U.S. citizenship to her foreign-born child. His father of record was a Kenyan, a British Protected Subject, which status passed to all his father's offspring. How could Barack Obama II, whose birth status was governed by British law, be a natural born Citizen of the United States? He was not even a U.S. citizen at birth!
UNLESS he has been NATURALIZED, which is mutually exclusive of "natural born" and would exclude him thereafter from ever being a natural born Citizen,
HE IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN, A U.S. CITIZEN!!!
HE WAS BORN A BRIT, HE'S ALWAYS A BRIT, AND HE'S NOT LEGIT!
It is encouraging that the judge has quashed the motion to dismiss. The question that I have is, how long can Obama and his attorneys delay discovery? Who will benefit from such a delay if it indeed occurs? On the other hand, it Obama is thrown off the ballot in Georgia, it could easily spread to other states. Would like to hear from others about Orly's win and their opinion of what this ultimately means.
Former Obama staffer arrested in false ID scheme
by Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor
It's probably going to be lost in coverage of today's South Carolina GOP presidential primary but the biggest story of the day - and maybe much more than that even - could prove to be the arrest of a former Obama campaign staffer in a scheme to impersonate Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz.
Here's the basic story from the Des Moines Register:
"A Des Moines man has been arrested after police say he used, or tried to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz in a scheme to falsely implicate Schultz in perceived unethical behavior in office.
"Zachary Edwards was arrested Friday and charged with identity theft.
"The Iowa Department of Public Safety issued a news release saying Schultz's office discovered the scheme on June 24, 2011 and notified authorities.
"The criminal complaint says Edwards fraudulently used or attempted to use the identity of Schultz or Schultz's brother with the intent to obtain a benefit. No other details were given.
"The case did not appear yet in online court records and no attorney information was immediately available.
"If convicted, Edwards could face up to two years in prison."
That has bad-news-for-Obama written all over it.
Shane Vander Hart at Iowa Grounds points to the obvious surmise:
"So for political reasons Secretary Schultz and his brother Thomas were targeted… hmmmmm…. Where are we Chicago? You don’t like what a person stands for so you’re going to try to ruin them personally? I’d like to know who was this guy working for? Since he was caught he’s obviously not very bright which means somebody else was likely the brain...behind this."
And who might that somebody else be is the central question. Edwards worked for Obama in Nevada and five other states during the 2008 Democratic primary and general election campaigns.
Somebody apparently tried to erase Edwards' bio from the web, but the ever-resourceful Glenn Reynolds, who first alerted me to this story earlier today, located it in the Wayback Machine.
You will recall that ACORN and other Democratic satelites organized a campaign a couple of years back to install their allies in Secretary of State offices in as many key states as possible. Such officials are responsible for enforcing - or not enforcing - state election laws.
Being a Republican, Schultz represented an obstacle to the plan. Could that be why Edwards sought to, according to the Des Moines Register, falsify Schultz indentity in an effort to implicate him in a scandal that would result in his possible removal from office or defeat in the next election?
Powerline's John Hinderaker sums it all up:
"So on its face, Edwards’s identity theft appears to be part of a coordinated effort by the Iowa Democratic Party to bring down the Republican Secretary of State so he can be replaced with a Democrat. We hope that Edwards will get the long jail term that he deserves, but the more important question is, from whom was he taking instructions? Circumstantially, one would guess from his boss, Jeff Link. But if so, who was instructing (and paying?) Link’s firm? The White House? Tom Harkin? Iowa’s Democratic Party?"
So here we have what looks like the potential beginning of a significant election campaign scandal and I am sure editors at the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and, especially, MSNBC and CNN are at this very moment lining up their top investigative reporters to dig into the story.
What you doubt that?
Former Obama staffer arrested in false ID scheme | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner
And if you, Peggy Keller, think Mr. Obama's State of Hawaii birth documents, if such even exist, are safer in the custody of the Hawaii Dept. of Health and DOH Director Loretta Fuddy than in the custody of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings and Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi... no, I won't take such a cheap shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggy Keller, commenting at the 'Sacramento Bee'
Only the paper original can be verified as genuine by forensic examination, which involves feeling the embossed seal and examining the indentations for out-of-spec characteristics; weighing the sheet of paper, measuring the paper thickness, and comparing them to specifications; checking the ink penetration of signatures and examining the impression in the paper made by various typed (or copy-and-pasted) characters; estimating the age of the paper and trimming off an imperceptible sliver of the paper to determine fiber content, to expose anti-counterfeiting colored layers, and to be burned for destructive analysis; plus more tests than I wish to reveal to Obots.
And how does one validate a hologram, embossing, or even a watermark, with a certified copy? Hmmmm?
Document forgery analysts and counterfeit examiners do these tests every day, in addition to the tests every bank teller has to perform on every hundred dollar bill. And every day, courts in the U.S. demand original documents for forensic examination, e.g., for child custody, insurance claims, securities fraud, check kiting, disputed wills, contracts, and copyrights, military enlistments, security clearances, identity theft... the list of documents for which an original is required goes on and on and on.
Any novice can look at a three dollar bill - like the April 27, 2011, long form forgery, a computer picture fabricated with layers and kerned text printed by a computer, which a typewriter could not create - and recognize at a glance that it is, prima facie, as bogus as... a three dollar bill.
But only examination of the original can validate a document as authentic and legitimate.
Yet the Obama legal team will almost certainly attempt to confuse the two types, fake and original, to IMPLY and COMMUNICATE (without actually saying it under oath), "Any EXPERT can look at a picture of an original and validate it as authentic and legitimate." That will certainly be testimony with intent to deceive and a LIE under oath, a.k.a. PERJURY.
Wait for it... Watch for it... Expose it for what it is - felony perjury.
Re: Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings
If or when Mr. Obama fails to comply with the court subpoena for proof of eligibility to be on the State of Georgia Democratic Primary ballot, what can Judge Malihi do?
Within the state of Georgia, State of Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael M. Malihi can do whatever the law directs.
If Mr. Obama fails to show, he can be declared ineligible by default for the Georgia ballot.
Or, if Mr. Obama does show and when he fails to prove his eligibility for the Office of President, he can be declared ineligible for the Georgia ballot.
Or, if Mr. Obama declares martial law in the state of Georgia and places the Georgia National Guard under federal authority, he can still be declared ineligible for the Georgia ballot.
Or, if Mr. Obama indefinitely detains as terrorists Judge Malihi and dissidents in Georgia when the NDAA takes effect on Feb. 29th, the State of Georgia can directly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court about the transparently obvious unconstitutionality of the FY2012 NDAA (pp. 265-266), based on Amendments IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII,
and Mr. Obama can be declared ineligible for the Georgia ballot on general principles.
"Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean "eligible for the ballot until proven otherwise." In _Bute v. Illinois_ (333 U.S. 653), the U.S. Supreme Court opined,
"... the federal sphere of government has been largely limited to certain delegated powers. The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States or the prohibition of power to the states is upon those making the claim."
The burden of proof of establishing a delegation of power to the government of the United States is upon Mr. Obama, the person making the claim for or unto himself of that delegation of federal power, viz., the Presidency.
Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer
http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/arch...p/t-47271.html
Judge orders President to appear in court
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Xff7Vsf7T1U
Georgia judge orders Obama
to court on citizenship complaint
Atlanta Business Chronicle
A Georgia judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court Thursday in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint he isn’t a natural-born citizen and should not be on the state’s primary ballot in March, reports the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.
A Georgia resident made the complaint that prompted the order. It is one of many such complaints made across the country. So far, none of the complaints have been successful.
An Obama campaign aide said any attempts to involve the president personally will fail and that such complaints have no merit, the newspaper reported.
Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up, the Ledger-Enquirer said.
Read original here Georgia judge orders Obama to court on citizenship complaint - Atlanta Business Chronicle
I'm sure the President would prefer not to go, his lawyer put
forward a motion to quash the subpoena, but a Georgia judge has
denied the motion.
The hearing is on a complaint that Barack Obama is not a
natural-born citizen and should not be on the state's primary
ballot in March.
Now that the Obama has offered up a digitally altered version of a
birth certificate through the White House website, it should be
interesting to see what comes of this...
Video:
Obama Watch Judge orders President to appear in court
Goodman Green
- Brasscheck
P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.
That's how we grow. Thanks.
More articles at the link below
Meroni V ISBE is in Court!
Tuesday, 24 January 2012 00:00 | Written by Sharon Meroni | PDF | Print | E-mail
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
The issues involved in the US Citizenship challenge have been discussed before and can be found at this link. In summary, the process for getting on the ballot in Illinois does not provide proof or verification that candidates are US Citizens as required by the US and Illinois Constitutions. There is a 5 day objection period where a candidate’s application for ballot can be questioned by any registered voter in that candidate’s electoral jurisdiction.
Last December, I challenged all 5 candidates in both the 52nd House District and the 26th Senate District. These 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat applied for placement on the Primary ballot. Through our attorney, Steve Boulton, we challenged their placement on the ballot on grounds that their application did not provide proof that they are US Citizens. All 5 responded essentially that they had complied with the law and therefore they should be on the ballot.
In the circular reasoning that only politicians can spin in contorted election laws, the candidates were willing to show proof, but the Board of Elections cannot ask for it, because it is not mandated in the statues. There is literally no point in the process when a candidate’s citizenship is allowed to be questioned or verified. Candidates affirm in a signed and notarized statement that they are legally qualified. Proof of that statement is not available in the public record.
As expected, during the hearings before the Illinois State Board of Elections, our attorney, Steve Boulton, stipulated that the candidates could not provide proof, nor could the Board demand it. Based on the testimony of the lawyers representing the 5 candidates, the lawyers agreed the code is flawed because there is no verification of citizenship in the public record.
The Hearing officer, Barbara Goodman recommended the objections be overruled, and the candidates placed on the ballot. The Illinois State Board of Elections affirmed the decision. The law allows 5 days for the failed objector to file for a “Judicial Review to an Administrative Decision.”
Last week, Steve Boulton filed this petition, and we go to Court this afternoon at 2pm. Steve Boulton’s filing gets to the constitutional issues involved in this matter. In this action, we only included the two Senate candidates. This review takes place in the Cook County Court’s County Division. The petition can be read on Scribd.
Our next step is in Cook County Court. Tomorrow at 2pm, the Judge will set a fast paced schedule to hear arguments. I do not expect anything else to come from this court date.
For more information, Cal Skinner from McHenry County Blog has covered this issue.
This particular Defend the Vote action is co-sponsored by the US Justice Foundation which provides funding and legal expertise to assure this important constitutional issue is addressed.
Meroni V ISBE
Between Mr. Obama and attorney Michael Jablonski,
the scoffers' contempt for the law knows no bounds.
Quote:
Obama attorney to boycott ‘birther’ hearing
January 25th, 2012, 4:26 pm · ·
posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter, the Orange County Register, Santa Ana, Calif.
Scoffing at a judge’s call for Barack Obama to appear in court Thursday, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski says that not only will the president not be on hand but neither will Jablonski.
The lawsuit, in which several Georgia voters are represented by Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz, calls for Obama to be removed from Georgia’s March 6 primary ballot on the grounds that he doesn’t meet the requirement of being a natural-born citizen.
Jablonski wrote Georgia’s secretary of state to intervene and dismiss the suit.
“All issues were presented to your hearing officer – the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel – and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok,” Jablonski wrote. “He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them.
“We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.”
Taitz responded promptly on her blog.
“He is acting like a 5-year-old brat, saying ‘I am afraid of Orly, I want the secretary of state of Georgia to act like my mommy and protect me from Orly,’” she wrote. “Some leader of a free world.”
On Friday, Taitz’s string of failed lawsuits challenging Obama’s birth status was interrupted by a rare – if incremental – courtroom victory when Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi dismissed Jablonski’s request to quash Taitz’s subpoena to have Obama appear.
Malihi wrote that Obama’s court filings fail to show why his attendance would be “unreasonable or oppressive” or why his testimony would be “irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative.”
The White House has announced that Obama would be amid a campaign swing through several states on Thursday. Georgia is not among the states listed.
The state Democratic Party also announced it would boycott the hearing.
“They can tilt at windmills on their own,” said state party spokesman Eric Gray, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution‘s Jim Galloway.
Obama attorney to boycott ‘birther’ hearing - Total Buzz - The Orange County Register : The Orange County Register
Michael Jablonski's contempt of court is like spitting in Judge Malihi's face, or like a poker player saying, "I call your raise, and I'll raise it to 'all in,' except for this 5 pounds of nickel-plated steel. Now, put up or shut up."
But he has a big problem. The judge is a representative of the law, and not the power of the law in his person. The U.S. Attorneys are unavailable to Mr. Obama as an individual civilian for his personal election dispute. Jablonski is only Mr. Obama's private attorney, but State of Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi has the backing of Governor Nathan Deal and the full weight of the state of Georgia. That's sorta like a bicycle playing chicken at a RR crossing with a 100 mph freight train.
Jablonski knows that he will lose. Listen to his quavering voice! He just doesn't want to go into a courtroom that he might not even be able to leave as a free man. In the future, he may have to avoid flying through Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport on his way to all points southeast.
Jablonski's failure to appear will cause Mr. Obama to lose ballot placement in Georgia BY DEFAULT... not that Mr. Obama has any hope of winning Georgia's 15 electoral votes, anyway. But their no-show speaks volumes about how defenseless on the merits Mr. Obama is.
If the sheeple propaganda agencies maintain media silence about this double no-show, then not appearing may be the best option for the White House Mob. Certainly no fine will cause them a moment's pause, and the loss of one state as a vacation destination shouldn't be a problem for a man who begins campaigning for Emperor of the World on Nov. 7th. Mr. Obama will lose access to some of the best golf courses, though - from Atlanta to Savannah, and from Augusta National to Saint Simons Island and Sea Island.
Even without the oath-bound truth, such consequences create a real motivation for patriots in other states to find a state judge who will subpoena Mr. Obama to appear in court. Can anyone locate judges with the courage of Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi in Hawaii, Illinois, and/or the District of Columbia?
Benjamin Franklin's letter to Charles William Frederic Dumas, thanking him for a copy of Vattel
Quote:
Benjamin Franklin to To: Charles William Frederic Dumas
Dear Sir,
Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.
I received your several favors, of May 18th, June 30th, and July 8th, by Messrs. Vaillant and Pochard;(1) whom if I could serve upon your recommendation, it would give me great pleasure. Their total want of English is at present an obstruction to their getting any employment among us; but I hope they will soon obtain some knowledge of it. This is a good country for artificers or farmers; but gentlemen of mere science in les belles lettres cannot so easily subsist here, there being little demand for their assistance among an industrious people, who, as yet, have not much leisure for studies of that kind.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Expose de ce qui s'est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies," bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.(2) We are making all the provision in our power here to oppose that force, and we hope we shall be able to defend ourselves. But, as the events of war are always uncertain, possibly, after another campaign, we may find it necessary to ask the aid of some foreign power.
Continued at Letters of delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Volume 2, September 1775-December 1775
Georgia Sec. of State Brian P. Kemp reiterates the danger if Mr. Obama (or
his legal representative) fails to appear before Judge Malihi on Jan. 26, 2012:
"please understand that you do so at your own peril."
Video of the hearings begins at 9 am EST.Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia Sec. of State Brian Kemp
THE FOLLOWING IS A RUNNING ACCOUNT OF THE CASE BROUGHT BY ATTY. ORLY TAITZ BEFORE JUDGE MICHAEL MALIHI IN GEORGIA ADMINISTATIVE STATE COURT ON JAN. 26, 2012.
10:16 am - The plaints brought by Atty. Van Irion and Atty. Mark Hatfield having been presented, Judge Michael Malihi introduces the case brought by Atty. Orly Taitz
There is no defense attorney present, so the testimony of the witnesses proceeds without objection.
Larry Farrar was to present a video of his evidence, but the judge said that he didn't need to hear that.
Strunk presents his evidence.
Susan Daniels presents the evidence of Social Security fraud on the SSN ending with "4425". SSN fraud is common among non-citizens wishing to pose as citizens.
10:30 am - Papa presents the evidence of fabrication on the April 27, 2011, purported Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama II.
10:35 am - Jordan presents the evidence from e-Verify showing that the government does not recognize the number ending with "4425" as a valid SSN.
10:39 am - presents evidence about the technical problems in the purported Hawaii Certificate.
10:48 am - Hudson (?) presents evidence about the SSN being spurious and the purported Certificate having several disqualifying defects.
11:03 am - In the absence of objecting defense counsel, Atty. Orly Taitz takes the stand as a sworn witness to present Social Security fraud evidence.
11:04 am - Becoming bogged down in the details presented by Dr. Taitz, Judge Malihi directs that she present this to him in its written.form. The audience in the courtroom and those receiving the video feed are most likely quite familiar with the evidence she presents, but this does limit the public dissemination of the many, many pages of evidence against Mr. Obama.
11:10 am - There being no opposition, no objections, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no defense witnesses or testimony, the hearing lasts less than an hour. Without announcing when he would return his judgment, Judge Malihi declares the hearing concluded.
_______________________
Judge Malihi appeared to be impartial, in that he allowed the evidence to be entered into the record, yet he showed no favor to Dr. Taitz, and he required her to make her statements with legal rigor. That should help in case of an appeal to a superior court.
Dr. Taitz neither made an impassioned appeal nor did she tie together the witnesses' testimonies in a closing argument. Without a summation to logically organize all the information presented and to "tell them what she told them," her evidence had minimal impact.
Dr. Taitz had been seeking a translator for an Indonesian witness, who did not appear today. A translator may not have been available.
And Dr. Taitz's surprise witness was ... ???
here is a live feed link.
but he won't show he is in Las vegas as I write this
Georgia Live Stream Video | Article II Super PAC
Watched the whole proceeding but had difficulty with the audio quality. Surprise witness??
Kathy, too cryptic for some of us. Who was in Las Vegas?
here is a live feed link.
but he won't show he is in Las vegas as I write this
Georgia Live Stream Video | Article II Super PAC
President ObamaQuote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
go to see you TexasBorn
I hope that, at a minimum, enough evidence was presented to keep Obama off the Georgia ballot. Even though Dr. Taitz did not present the evidence in a polished manner, I believe the message was clear, even to the ignorant, that further investigation is warranted.Quote:
Originally Posted by kathyet
Knowledge of the Obama usurpation must become the public understanding to the extent that it undermines his authority to govern, like a unofficial "no-confidence" vote. Then he should resign, as did Pres. Richard Nixon in 1974, long after Watergate became widely known.
But Atty. Michael Jablonski and the Kenyan communist usurper are counting on the sheeple propaganda agencies to keep a lid on it. Jablonski had nothing to gain by appearing before Judge Malihi - the fraudulent impostor wouldn't get Georgia's 15 electoral votes anyway.
RED ALERT FOR COLORADO!
http://www.alipac.us/f9/red-alert-co...espond-249284/
A natural born Citizen isa citizen
born in the country
of parents who are citizens.
That is the textus receptus for nbC, according to:
>>> over 2400 years of common usage in Western Civilization (except by the tyrant King George III in 18th c. Great Britain);
>>> correspondence among the Framers of the Constitution: Geo. Washington, John Jay, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, David Ramsay, and others; *
(Continued at http://www.alipac.us/f19/barack-obam...ml#post1253018 )
* The following are quotes concurrent with the Constitution which make manifest the Framers' original intent regarding "natural born Citizen."
"Timothy Cunningham's Law Dictionary (1771) was the only law dictionary that James Madison ordered for the Continental Congress. It was one of the most popular comprehensive English dictionaries of the late eighteenth century, and was found in many personal libraries, including those of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. It was contemporaneously used by various American Supreme Courts for clarification of legal terms. (Berry, pp.347-8 ).
"Under the 'Aliens' section of his Law Dictionary, Cunningham defined 'natural-born subject' as one who is born within the king's realm, of parents who are under the king's 'actual obedience:'
"'All those are natural born subjects, whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.' (Cunningham, p.95, in section entitled "Aliens")
"The exact same definition of 'natural-born subject' is found in Matthew Bacon's A New Abridgment of the Law, Volume 1, published in 1736. (Bacon, Matthew, p.77)."
Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer, a scholarly treatment of the "natural born Citizen" clause and its consequences upon Mr. Obama's ineligibility. Highly recommended.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers:
"Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to
be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!"
contains an excellent compilation of historical references to "natural born Citizen" which illuminate the original intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Benjamin Franklin to: Charles William Frederic Dumas [in the Netherlands]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
Ben Franklin thanks Charles Dumas for Copies of Vattel's Law of Nations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel's codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington, he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a "strong check" against foreign influence, and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a "natural born Citizen." Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a "born Citizen" was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., 'natural'. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one's parents via natural law.
The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay's letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a "born Citizen" of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.
John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated [New York] 25 July 1787:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "
... General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention, and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted, adding the adjective "natural", making it "natural born Citizen of the United States" for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton's proposed, "born a Citizen."
CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (USN Ret.)
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers:
"Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to
be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also see A Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States (1789) by David Ramsay of South Carolina.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story held that the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution was included to exclude "ambitious foreigners" from the presidency and to shield government in the United States against the foreign influence, foreign interference, and foreign intrigues that so plagued European monarchies.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
January 26, 2012
Obama Ballot Access Challenge Hearing – Gavel to Gavel Live Video Stream Coverage from Atlanta GA
Filed under: Articles/Reports-Other,News Announcements — cfkerchner @ 8:20 am
Tags: Article II Super Pac, ballot access challenge, Barack Obama not a natural born Citizen, Birther Summit, Constitution, Georgia, Live video coverage. Obama eligibility hearing
Obama Ballot Access Challenge Hearing – Gavel to Gavel Live Video Stream Coverage from Atlanta GA
My comment and reaction to today’s legal proceedings in GA:
Today I give thanks to God and the great state of Georgia which demonstrated that we are in some parts of our nation still a nation of laws and not men. Obama and his attorney thumbed their noses at the Georgia court and the entire judicial system and decided not to even show up at the court hearing in Atlanta GA today to present evidence and the real 3-dimensional identity documents requested and subpoenaed, not merely digital images on the internet. Obama thinks he is a King and thus not subject to the election laws of Georgia and the United States Constitution. He will soon learn otherwise. As the Georgia Secretary of State said in warning Obama and his attorney if they did not show up for the court hearing today … if they do that, they will do so at their own peril. See results below. CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret), cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
Prior link to the live coverage, now over, was at 9 a.m. EST 26 Jan 2012 at this link: Article II Super PAC | Home Page
Update 12:45 pm : Based on watching the live feed. Obama’s attorney was a no show. Hearing was conducted without him. At least one of the attorney’s pointed out to the judge that Obama’s attorney not showing up was showing contempt to the court and to the entire judicial system. There was a short private meeting in the Judge’s chambers prior to the start of the hearing. The hearing ended after about two hours of presentation by the various lawyers for the plaintiff’s side including getting testimony from witnesses and presenting the court exhibits and Supreme Court case law covering the issue of natural born Citizenship and that Obama is not “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus is not eligible to be on the GA ballot. Atty Taitz also introduced evidence and witness testimony regarding Obama’s identity fraud activities regarding the Connecticut SSN and the forged online birth certificate. The judge is allowing some additional time for the both sides to submit written briefs to him before he makes his decision. As I understand it, he will release the final outcome and his decision sometime in early February. But he was obviously not happy that Obama and his attorneys stiffed the court. More details will be posted as additional information is provided by those who physically attended the hearing.
Update 1:05 pm: Per telecon between G Wilmott and Dean Haskins which was relayed to me. Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama’s name not be on the Georgia ballot! All the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed. How does the mainstream media spin this? The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge’s recommendation. Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia! Congratulations to all freedom-loving Americans!
More coverage and news about the hearing here: Georgia Hearing: Judge Wanted To Immediately Enter Default Judgment Against Obama | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records
Brief report by the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper site trying to put the best spin they could on Obama defaulting the case by him or his legal team not showing up today: No ruling in ‘birther' challenge *| ajc.com
# # # #
Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA. For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country. Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause. Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away. Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship. The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.
Adjectives mean something. A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’ but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States
The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington. Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.
Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types: Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic - 'Citizen at Birth' NOT Identical to 'Natural Born Citizen'
See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011: Obama Birth Certificate & Other Docs Forged - Expert Reports
See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him: Barack Obama Social Security Number (SSN) Fraudulent
See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here: EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions
The Obama constitutional eligibility issue is not a fringe issue! South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama’s constitutional eligibility and true legal identity investigated. This is not a fringe issue: Astounding percentage in early-primary state question eligibility
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
ProtectOurLiberty.org - Kerchner v Obama & Congress - Help Us Protect Our Liberty Publicity, Education, and Legal Action Fund Raising - Natural Born Citizen & Natural Law
CDR Kerchner's Blog
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government
Obama Ballot Access Challenge Hearing – Gavel to Gavel Live Video Stream Coverage from Atlanta GA « CDR Kerchner's Blog
The U.S. Customs and Immigration Service still officially makes the distinction between "native-born" and "natural-born" citizens.
Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
Quick - download it to archive before the usurpation can expunge the reference.Quote:
The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation.
The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.
The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.
The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born.
by attorney Leo Donofrio
The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born. « Natural Born Citizen/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Donofrio
I apologize for snatching defeat from the jaws of so-called "victory", but the hearing with Judge Malihi was our "winner-takes-all bet" and we get . . . pocket change.
This was the most sympathetic judge we've had in 3½ years, unfazed by intimidation, threats, or coercion, the first judge to enter the merits of the nbC case into evidence, and we get . . . a default judgment for non-appearance . . . against the fraudulent communist/Is|amist dictator and usurper of the U.S. government?
So he can't be on the ballot in Georgia... so what? He wasn't in the running for Georgia's 15 electoral votes in any case. But he surely did receive an unexpected gift when the other attorneys entered the forged Certificate into the record as evidence. The opposition doesn't even show up, and we shoot ourselves in the foot.
We should not have expected the Conman-in-Chief to show up at a fight that he couldn't win, where any possible outcome would have been a loss overall for him. I guess it could have been worse.
The next hearing before Judge Malihi in Atlanta is on Feb. 6th.
Video at links below
No ruling in ‘birther' challenge
01-26-2012 • Atlanta News, Sports, Atlanta Weather, Business News*| ajc.com
After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.
Lawyers for area residents mounting "birther" challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearing when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing.
"It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch," lawyer Van Irion told Malihi.
"I'm not interested in commentary on that, counselor," Malihi quickly replied.
Late Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, wrote Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote.
No ruling in ‘birther' challenge
Read Full Story
By Bill Rankin
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.
Enlarge photo
Around the Plaintiff's table Kevin Powell (from left), Thomas Hatfield, Carl Swensson, John Sampson, and Mark Hatfield greeted each other before the hearing. The plaintiffs contend President Obama is not a natural-born citizen and not eligible to be on the Georgia ballot.
Bob Andres, bandres@ajc.com Around the Plaintiff's table Kevin Powell (from left), Thomas Hatfield, Carl Swensson, John Sampson, and Mark Hatfield greeted each other before the hearing. The plaintiffs contend President Obama is not a natural-born citizen and not eligible to be on the Georgia ballot.
Enlarge photo
The defendant's side was empty as the Obama camp decided to boycott the hearing.
Bob Andres, bandres@ajc.com The defendant's side was empty as the Obama camp decided to boycott the hearing.
Enlarge photo
A Georgia judge did not issue a ruling on a 'birther' challenge as to whether President Barack Obama can appear on the Georgia ballot.
Ross D. Franklin, AP A Georgia judge did not issue a ruling on a 'birther' challenge as to whether President Barack Obama can appear on the Georgia ballot.
Related
No ruling in ‘birther' hearing
Insider: Kemp warns Obama attorney skip hearing ‘at your own peril’
Lawyers for area residents mounting "birther" challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearing when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing.
"It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch," lawyer Van Irion told Malihi.
"I'm not interested in commentary on that, counselor," Malihi quickly replied.
Late Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, wrote Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote.
Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing.
In response, Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. "If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril," Kemp wrote.
Thursday's hearing was held before a packed courtroom with almost every seat taken -- except for those at the defendant's table facing the judge.
No ruling in ‘birther' challenge *| ajc.com
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strunk.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Vogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Vogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Vogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
It’s interesting.
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.
Share on Twitter
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138
Submit to StumbleUponShare via email
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138
POTUS Gets a Failure to Appear – 100 Times Bigger than Watergate
The Intel Hub
Shepard Ambellas
January 26, 2012
GEORGIA — A packed courtroom today minus the POTUS (President of the United States) and his attorney, as Obama was a “no show” grabbing a FTA (Failure to Appear) in the case suggesting Obama himself is not a natural born citizen.
http://theintelhub.com/wp-content/up...ma-Doorway.pngOfficial White House Photo
Although this comes as no surprise to well researched individuals, it is startling that the almighty dictator can literally skip out on court.
Those who filed suit are claiming that Obama should be kept off the primary ballot in Georgia for presidential reelection in 2012.
The Obama Commission says these claims have no merit.
One witness testified that Obama’s father is not a U.S. citizen but a citizen of Africa, and others testified to the fact that Obama is using a fraudulent social security number (most likely issued by the CIA) as previously covered by The Intel Hub.
An excerpt from AJC reads;
“This court has authority to take appropriate steps to punish him in contempt,” said state Rep. Mark Hatfield, a Waycross Republican who represents two men from Duluth and Morrow who filed challenges.Orly Taitz who filed suit and has been instrumental in the proceedings stated to a local news station and others;
“He is a complete fraud, he is using a forged birth certificate, and he is using a stolen social security number…. this man is making a joke out of this country”.Last Saturday she stated as reported by the Miami Herald;
“This will be 100 times bigger than Watergate…. There are high ranking judges and federal officials who are involved in this cover up. The ramifications of this trial will be enormous….. But he’s in a catch-22…. If he is appealing this decision, then he looks guilty. The whole nation understands this man is a fraud.”Here’s the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSVzhlEVzsw&feature=player_embedded
Jerome R. Corsi of WND writes;
The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.CBS Atlanta reports;
Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”
The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qGhufKhJSME
The following excerpt is a Blow-by-Blow Report of the courtroom proceedings that took place today in Georgia by Craig Anderson;
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.We will keep you updated on this issue as it develops.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
Advertisement
http://www.survivefoodcrisis.org/aff/300x250-2.gif
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Gogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
Please send any information to: tips@theintelhub.com
POTUS Gets a Failure to Appear – 100 Times Bigger than Watergate :
Speaking for CBS Atlanta News, Christopher King couldn't resist slipping in the disinformation about six other presidents having foreign-born parents. As we here know about nbC, it doesn't matter where the parents were born, only that the child was born on U.S. soil, and that both parents were U.S. citizens when the child was born.
Christopher King of CBS Atlanta News also played on Americans' ignorance of the Constitution when he mentioned Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson as Presidents with foreign-born parents, implying that those "birther idiots" would consider Jefferson and Jackson ineligible for the Presidency as well.The early Presidents were grandfathered in by the exception, "or a citizen... at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."Quote:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;"
U.S. Constitution, Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5
These Presidents were born British subjects before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution:
George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
William Henry Harrison
These Presidents were born British subjects, as well as American citizens
[well, maybe, maybe not], after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution:
Chester A. Arthur
Barack Obama
Of course, that exception has not been applicable for 164 years, and it doesn't apply to Barack Obama II either... or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Mario Rubio, or Bobby Jindal, or George Romney.
I may have spoken hastily about getting short-changed with a default judgment without the case being tried on the merits. On the Manning Report, plaintiff Carl Swensson reported that even when Judge Malihi called the three attorneys into chambers when Mr. Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, both no-showed, the attorneys refused to accept only a default judgment for failure to appear. They insisted upon having their evidence read into the record, even though it was not contested, argued, or debated.
I still don't know how uncontested evidence admitted in a forfeited case compares in validity to evidence admitted in a trial that was actually contested in court.
So now tell me why is this not declared a constitutional crisis,ignorance is no escape from the truth!!!! Illegal is illegal here we go again!!!!!
Obama will drop out/resign at some point, I believe, before the election. The tide against him will be too much for the Dem's.Quote:
Originally Posted by kathyet
The problem I see is the Judge is only in a position to recommend, he cannot order Obama be left off the ballot. The final decision will be up to the SOS. My gut tells me something will happen before the general election and once again an elected official will bow to Zero and let him on the ballot. My guess is that a higher court will say the constitution is not as important as all these disenfranchised people who want to vote for him and are being denied the right. Sorry, but this one issue as ended all faith I have in any member of our government to do the right thing.....Even Paul did not challenge it in 2008, and he always waves his alleged love of the constitution.
This not only should not be shocking, it should not even surprise anybody who has even just scanned the past 480 pages of this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7
Move on... nothing new to see here... keep moving...Quote:
Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7
Welcome home, cayla99 and florgal. Good to see you back.
In the Twilight Zone (yes, I know it seems we are living it!), your logic would hold up. However, one of the first constitutional challenges to Obama's legitimacy came from the Governor of Georgia, did it not? Coincidence? Secondly, I might become disenfranchised if I'm not allowed to vote for a bowl of Captain Crunch or my neighbors cocker spaniel for POTUS. (both by the way would be far better Presidents then what we have). Point being, just because he fooled voters once, doesn't mean he can or should get away with it twice. The cat is out of the bag completely now whereas the cat was only peaking out of the bag during obama's first run for POTUS. Gotta keep the faith baby!Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99