.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Highlander, I think we are all ready to march. The offensive may begin in April!
Printable View
.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Highlander, I think we are all ready to march. The offensive may begin in April!
Another nail in Obama's eligibility coffin. The hits just keep on coming!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-182068-.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
http://web.archive.org/web/200406271427 ... 060403.htm
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat
after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race...
__________________________________________________ _________
[The East African Standard is published in Nairobi, Kenya.]
Pretty sure Ive seen this on this thread before.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
On Dec. 6, Atty. Mario Apuzzo wrote this overview of the facts about Mr. Obama's ineligibility for office.
He recently put it on his front page, "A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers."
[quote="Mario Apuzzo, Esq."][size=117]Sunday, December 6, 2009
What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-5V9K42htM...uzzo-mario.jpg
We have seen that Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizenâ€
Atty. Orly Taitz has another petition (without QW) to Judge David Carter.
Hearing on Motion for Clarification of 10/29/09. Order is set for January 4, 10:00am
To me, it seems senseless to keep knocking on a door that Judge Carter slammed shut.
But she probably has some loose ends to patch up so that this case can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court :gag: .
In any case, Judge Carter's court is just across town in Santa Ana, so it's a local call for her,
with no flying necessary. That is her "home court," so to speak.
This is a great piece and very succinctly states the facts. However, in my opinion it doesn't give justice to the bigger picture. IMO, Obama's legal status has become secondary to the deliberate fraud and cover-up during his nomination and subsequent oath of office. High ranking members of our government knew that fraud was being perpetrated and even collaborated in this massive scheme. I want ALL of those who took part in this investigated and convicted! Otherwise, what's the point? This same scenario could be repeated again if the underlying cause isn't decisively dealt with.
[quote="MinutemanCDC_SC"]On Dec. 6, Atty. Mario Apuzzo wrote this overview of the facts about Mr. Obama's ineligibili, y for office.
He recently put it on his front page, "A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers."
[quote="Mario Apuzzo, Esq."][size=117]Sunday, December 6, 2009
What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-5V9K42htM...uzzo-mario.jpg
We have seen that Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizenâ€
[size=117]Agreed. But the fraudulent, usurping impostor must be removed from office first,Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
thereby legally establishing the existence of fraud, before anyone else can be indicted for conspiracy to defraud.
__________________________________________________ _________
Digressing off topic for a moment...
“Tempt with greed, bankrupt and foreclose,â€
Video clip of lead plaintiff in the Chrysler dealers lawsuit
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... n-dec-4th/
FreedomFirst, perhaps you can explain the link between the auto dealers' lawsuit and Barack Obama's Constitutional ineligibility for office - beyond that Leo Donofrio is involved in each of them.
American Grand Jury serves US District Court, Hartford, CT
December 21st, 2009
The Super II Grand Jury Presentments were process-served upon the US District Court, Hartford, CT.
PRESS RELEASE: December 22, 2009 by American Grand Jury
The Super II Grand Jury Presentments were process-served upon the US District Court, Hartford, CT through the US Attorney’s office. The serve was made by Daniel Hunt, an American Grand Jury member.
Daniel filed this report with American Grand Jury as follows:
I served the Presentments at the U.S. District Court (Abraham Ribicoff Federal Bldg) in Hartford, CT. I initially went to the Court Clerk’s office. I asked for the clerk named on their website. I was told she was in the New Haven, CT, District Court today. The lady asked me why I wanted to speak with the clerk. I explained I was here to serve Presentments of a Grand Jury to the court. I handed her the Presentments upon request. She walked across a large room and handed it to someone sitting at a desk. The lady returned and referred me to the U.S. Attorney’s office on the third floor.
I entered the U.S. Attorney’s office which consisted of a waiting room. The counter was separated by a glass partition. I rang a buzzer on the counter. A lady appeared and I explained I was there to serve the AGJ Presentments. She stated I would need to fill out a form. I informed her this was not a lawsuit but a presentment of criminal charges. She asked me if I was an Attorney. I informed her I was not an Attorney. She asked me for the Presentments. I gave the documents to her.
She then walked away and returned approximately five minutes later and stated it would be reviewed and then notify me. I asked her to stamp the box on the top cover page and give me a copy. She returned after a few minutes with a copy of the whole Presentments including the time and date stamp in the box.
She could not tell me the process or how long it would take. That’s everything that transpired to the best of my recollection. It will be interesting to see how they respond.
Daniel Hunt
http://agjnow.org/serves/hunt.jpg
Posted by Bob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Filed in Presentments Served
MinuteMan,
Thank you for the posting on the American Grand Jury presentment in Hartford.
There was an earlier filing with the FBI in Arizona ( http://agjnow.org/ ). The interesting thing about the FBI filing in Arizona was the following statement by Maggie Passaro:
==============
He would not sign on OUR document. Agent Schwartz only had to say to me that [b][i]“ALL PERSONS UP FOR ELECTION ON BALLOTS ARE CHECKED ON THEIR BACKGROUND BY THE FBI…â€
The plaintiffs question Obama's "legitimate authority" to take unprecedented action impacting an entire industry (American automotive manufacturers and their supply and distribution chain) and that questioning invokes both the fundamental issue of Obama's eligibility for the office he holds AND the constraints on the power vested in the office even IF he were to hold it legitimately.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
The plaintiffs are able to plead a UNIQUE and PECUNIARY harm (loss of their businesses) which had been lacking in most of the other plaintiffs who came before.
The links, and prior posts that were lengthier, should make the theory of the case pretty clear. The link to the video was to show that there is now some "publicity" attendant to the lawsuit. If my posts need to assume that readers need to be brought forward from Genesis to the New Testament, I'll just stop posting. Thanks!
No worries, mate. Keep posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
Research suggests that both the Democratic party and the GOP may have taken an interest in altering that eligibility criteria in relatively recent times. (Taking things back about a decade.)Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
Most of the attempts prior to the past decade appear to have related to Constitutional Amendment proposals, of which Wiki reports there have been 26 in total since adoption of the Constitution. The "legislative through laws or resolutions" approach to change the meaning of a three word term-of-art, properly rooted in whatever its intended meaning was at the time it was used, is of later vintage.
The research also suggests that, contrary to the popular notion spread by his supporters, Mr. McCain did not make a prompt disclosure of his own birth certificate but engaged in using members of the press as a smokescreen. If a comprehensive timeline was developed, it might have the following highlights:
1998 -- Potential "first trigger" of interest as McCain's own eligibility issue was raised even before his first foray into the 2000 GOP primaries
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 070998.htm
2000 -- the Barney Frank proposed Constitutional Amendment, which went to hearings and faced enough opposition it never got rolling along for a Congressional vote nor sent to the states for ratification.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/ju ... 306_0f.htm
2003 -- the Orrin Hatch proposed Constitutional Amendment -- this was ostensibly for Governor Arnold Schwarznegger, according to some press accounts in the San Francisco newspapers and others, but possibly introduced more because Orrin Hatch might really have had McCain in mind, after the 'natural born' problem surfaced in the 2000 primaries. At the time of its introduction, Schwarzenegger was only running for Governor and hadn't yet been elected. (But Arnold becoming political might have been seen by GOP interests as full of promise of his becoming the next "Reagan" -- a well-known actor becoming a politician.)
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=885
February 25, 2004 -- the "brazen" Congressional attempt to avoid the necessity of amending the Constitution, or to usurp the functions of the judiciary by redefining "natural born citizen" in such a way that the provisions fulfilling its conditions would make it equivalent to 8 U.S.C. 1401. (The statute about "citizen at birth" which should not be confused with a term like 'nbc' since the latter had a known definition at the time the Founders wrote the Constitution and included 'nbc' as a requirement for highest office.) That measure had sponsorship from two Oklahoma Republicans (Nickles and Inhofe) and one Louisiana Democrat (Landrieu), and is hard to interpret other than as lending assistance to some partisan and/or regional interests then known to be brewing. McCain would have had his potential "nbc" issues still lingering and not solved by the earlier attempts in 2000 and 2003 at Constitutional Amendment; Bobby Jindal had attracted notice during his primary bid for Louisiana Governor in 2003; Mitch Landrieu is currently Jindal's Lt. Governor and brother of co-sponsor Mary Landrieu, the Democratic party might be said to have been generally interested in seeing the "nbc" clause changed since the 2000 Amendment's introduction by Barney Frank. A link to a brief notice of the legislative revision attempt.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128
The text of the bill was lingering only in cache memory on the Internet. There is no present online record of its hearings, although it appears that a date and time were set for hearings and that they occurred (October 5, 2004). People have been working to track down printed testimony from the hearings. The text of the bill makes it appear as though the aim of the legislation was to re-write "natural born citizen" as though it were merely the provisions of the U.S. Code relating to citizenship at birth, and not the term-of-art envisioned by the Framers, subject to its own definition consistent with how they would have defined it in 1787.
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:-8m ... mmary%2520
This is the text, with explanation, of that bill:
[quote][size=150]Natural Born Citizen Act Summary
PURPOSE: To define the term “natural born Citizenâ€
Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."
Judges in the cases so far have assumed (mistakenly) that the two-party system produced the agitation necessary to keep the waters pure. The fact that the "political process" is normally expected to seek out and publicize the shortcomings of opposing candidates is the common thread as each decision gets handed down which bows to Political Question grounds. It's the thread that runs through the reasoning behind the FBI not routinely running background checks on elected officials, unlike the work-up the FBI might be called upon to perform on appointed or civil service federal employees. And yet, when each side in a 2-party process had its own weak under-belly of ineligibility problems, what happened in '08 was that each side pulled punches when it came to exposing the other. The media was no Fourth Estate displaying any spirit of independent inquiry, either. A "perfect storm" of the mass of voters being snookered into voting for one or the other of two "imperfect candidates" occurred ...
FreedomFirst,Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
Thanks for both of your last postings. The birth cert links are busted but John McCain's BC can be found here: http://johnmccain.dominates.us/
Juan
Hawaii's DOH is seemingly at odds with the state's own OIP. Click link for complete story. Letter below is from OIP to DOH.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/21/ ... request-2/
[quote][size=150]On December 8th, the Office for Information Practices put the Department of Health on notice, with this letter:
Dear Ms. Okubo:
The Office of Information Practices (“OIPâ€
********Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Let's see:
1. President Obama signs historical healthcare bill.
2. But sometime down the road, we finally see his
Hawaii long form birth certificate and his Occidental college
in California records.
3. We find out that Obama's Hawaii long form birth certificate
has no doctor name or hospital name on it.
4. We find out that Obama registered as a foreign student or as
Soetoro instead of as Obama at Occidental College in California.
5. Would such information above mean that Obama's signature on
the health care bill is invalid? Enquiring minds want to know.
Mirse, drinking coffee and the caffeine is starting to take effect so let me take a shot at this:
1. President Obama signs historical healthcare bill.
Strictly speaking, illegal POTUS, invalid signature.
2. But sometime down the road, we finally see his
Hawaii long form birth certificate and his Occidental college
in California records.
May only find suspicious information here. However, I have read that nobody in Obama's classes at Occidental remembers Obama attending at all. Zilch. Nada. Suspicious. Perhaps perjury.
3. We find out that Obama's Hawaii long form birth certificate
has no doctor name or hospital name on it.
Smoking gun maybe since he stated that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. Hospital screw-up? Doubtful.
4. We find out that Obama registered as a foreign student or as
Soetoro instead of as Obama at Occidental College in California.
Very damaging and would be the beginning of the end of BO, aka Barry Soetoro.
5. Would such information above mean that Obama's signature on
the health care bill is invalid? Enquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
Such information, constitutionally speaking, would mean that everything he signed would be invalid, ie; illegal POTUS, illegal everything.
Let me try to put some common sense to all of this. It is widely known in political circles and among a large segment of the voting population that Obama is a usurper to the office. He assumed the office of POTUS through fraud and deception. IMO, the reason that the Judges are throwing out these eligibility cases is that they have the fear of God put into them by Obama's minions. Riots, burning, financial turmoil, civil unrest, constitutional crisis...you name it and they fear it. Yes, we have a real mess on our hands. Some or all of the above may happen if Obama is removed from office. The question is, are we prepared to uphold the law of the land and deal with the ensuing chaos arising from such a revelation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirse
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNew ... 69749.html
Dec 23, 2009
Kadhafi meets Obama 'granny'
TRIPOLI - LIBYAN leader Moamer Kadhafi received the third wife of the grandfather of US President Barack Obama on Tuesday, Libyan state media reported.
Mrs Sarah Obama, who the US leader refers to as his granny even though she is not a blood relation, came to Libya to congratulate Mr Kadhafi on his efforts to unify the African continent, the official JANA news agency said.
She told the Libyan leader she had come 'to tell him of her pride as an African citizen in the efforts he has made to unify the African continent and his humanitarian initiatives for Africans,' JANA said.
Mrs Sarah Obama lives in western Kenya. Mr Kadhafi is the current chairman of the African Union and has been an outspoken supporter of greater unity within the bloc. -- AFP
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 25 hearing in Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama
orlytaitzesq.com
newsletter@orlytaitzesq.com
Fax: 949-766-7603
Phone: 949-683-5411
RSM, CA 92688
29839 Santa Margarita
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ.
CONTACT INFO:
Home
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation – 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688 – Copyright 2009
World's Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site
Your donations to the cause are much appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif
[size=150]Press release
Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-3078
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . §
Plaintiffs, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . §
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . §
v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § Civil Action:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . §
Barack Hussein Obama, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .§ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, . . . . . § MOTION TO TRANSFER
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, . . . . . . . . § TO Honorable judge
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and . . . . . . . . . . .§ Royce Lamberth- chief
President of the Senate, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .§ judge of the district court
Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § of the District of Columbia
NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING AND MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
All the parties in the above caption case are hereby notified of the motion hearing to be held on January 25, 2010, at the Central District Court of California, Santa Ana Division, Judge Honorable David O. Carter, 411 W 4th str. Courtroom 9D, Santa Ana, California, Ronald Reagan Federal Building. Motion to be heard is the Motion to transfer the above captioned case to Honorable judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge of the US district court for the district of Columbia
MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF THE CASE TO THE HONORABLE ROYCE LAMBERTH CHIEF JUDGE OF THE US DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Pursuant to local rule 7-4 prior to making the motion below the undersigned attorney contacted the US attorneys’ office for the Meet and Confer conference and got a response from the assistant US attorney David DeJutte via e-mail on 12.23.09.
Here come all the plaintiffs in this case aside from Willey Drake and Markham Robinson represented by Mr. Kreep and state the following:
1. During the October 5 motion hearing pursuant to the motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, the moving parties, the assistant US attorneys DeJutte and West have argued that they believe that the proper jurisdiction for this case is the District of Columbia.
2. On October 29 this case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction only and was never heard on the merits, as this court noted in the above order that the proper jurisdiction is the District of Columbia court.
3. 28 US Chapter 87 §1391 (b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
4. 28 US Code Chapter 87 § 1404 (a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.
5. In the interest of judicial economy, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of expedient resolution of this case of National importance for “we the people of the United States of Americaâ€
Is this simply a request to transfer?
From Dr. Orly Taitz' blog:
[quote="benandt"][size=117]Patriotic Americans are . . . standing up and being counted in many ways–Tea Party, letters & faxes to their elected officials, protests, web sites, inter net blogging, “pink slipsâ€
We have the truth; Mr. Obama has (limited) power.
Usually, might overrules right, unless and until greater might rallies to the banner of the truth and the right:
Moses vs. Pharaoh,
David vs. Goliath and the Philistines,
the Maccabees vs. the Seleucids,
the Habsburg army vs. the Ottoman Empire,
Great Britain, the U.S., and the Allies vs. the Third Reich,
Coalition forces led by the U.S. vs. Saddam Hussein and the Baathists of Iraq.
But there are notable exceptions:
Mahatma Gandhi in India,
Dr. Martin Luther King in the U.S.,
Lech Walesa in Poland,
Desmond Tutu in South Africa.
My great hope is for Divine intervention.
But until that happens, Mr. Obama probably considers the greatest threat to his usurpation to be the rallying of the U.S. armed forces to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I would rather petition the Joint Chiefs of Staff than any other human institution.
This is the NY filing that was expected. A further filing in D.C. using quo warranto provisions -- arguing alternative theories of ineligibility under the Constitution or actions in excess of Constitutional limits -- is likely to be seen in the coming days/weeks.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/26/ ... sler-case/
Donofrio & Pidgeon file Motion for Reconsideration in Chrysler case
DEALER’S PILING ON, IN LEGAL BID TO DEFEND RIGHTS TO THEIR FRANCHISES
by John Charlton
(Dec. 26, 2009) — Last night Attorney Leo Donofrio filed an Omnibus Motion to Reconsider in the case RE: in Chrysler LLC et al., in the name of Attorney Stephen Pidgeon and himself, and on behalf of more than 20 Chrysler Dealerships, seeking to recover monetary compensation for the loss of their franchises and contractual rights with Chrysler.
The case involves the disputed bankruptcy proceedings of Chrysler automotive corporation, known formally as Chrysler LLC. The many cases regarding the dissolution and sale of Chrysler are being heard before the Honorable Robert J. Gonzalez, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Federal Court, Southern District of New York.
Following the sale of Chrysler LLC to Fiat, the new corporation took the name “Chrysler Group LLC,â€
I am beginning to think that when the truth gets really close to being revealed, something else will happen that will have Obama declaring Marshall law and suspending the courts. I also have the feeling that this will not be enforced with our military, but instead paid mercenaries such as Blackwater.
Nah, it will be UN Troops. And now with Interpol being given the power to come and go as they please and do as they wish with immunity from prosecution, I think it will be an importation of the Redcoats again.Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Smells like 1776 all over again to me.
If marshall law is envoked, I have a feeling that will be the last straw for a good many people.
[Sept. 24, 2009 - this is three months old, but I don't recall seeing it here.]
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/09/24/ ... awaii-law/
Okubo refuses another Citizen's request to comply with Hawaii Law
IGNORES UIPA [State of Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act] GUIDELINES AND STATE LAWS
by John Charlton
(Sept. 24, 2009) — As reported on Wednesday, Attorney Leo Donofrio is assisting a citizen who made requests to both Dr. [Chiyome] Fukino and Janice Okubo, Director and Communications Director respectively, for the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii, for pertinent information regarding the public statements prepared by Director Fukino regarding the vitals records of Barack Hussein Obama.
Now The Post & Email can confirm that Okubo has refused another request, that she received today from another citizen, as per the email forwarded to us in the CC line of the correspondence issued by the citizen.
That request read as follows (personal information redacted):
[quote="an anonymous UIPA requester"][size=117]—–Original Message—–
From: xxx
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:41 AM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Subject: Dear Dr. [Mrs., not Dr.] Janice Okubo
Dear Dr. [Mrs.] Janice Okubo,
I am writing you in your capacity as Communications Director of the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii.
In virtue of Section 338-18 (d) of the Hawaiian Revised Statutes, which reads:
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
I am requesting the index data (excluding the Social Security number, if it is contained therein) regarding the original vital records, cited in Director Fukino’s press release of July 27, 2009, which reads:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.â€
[size=117] http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/A ... rcid=38624
Few Details Known About Obama’s Three Weeks in Pakistan
Monday, November 03, 2008
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
(CNSNews.com) – As the presidential election campaign draws to a close, unanswered questions about Barack Obama’s three-week visit to Pakistan 27 years ago continue to cause unease in some quarters, but his campaign has revealed few details.
Last April during a San Francisco fundraiser, Obama referred briefly to a visit he had made to Pakistan during his college years.
Campaign press secretary Bill Burton subsequently gave inquiring journalists a few facts. Obama had visited Pakistan for “about three weeksâ€
[size=117]Monday, October 5, 2009
TerriK Relates Her Birth Certificate Research; a Picture of Governmental Cynicism & Evasion of Constitution
The following is essentially represented as originally published by TerriK, i.e., by and in Miss Tickly's Question 'O'thority.
OUR WORST NIGHTMARE CONFIRMED:
Obama’s COLB Lacks Legal Veracity.
What Now?
10/04/2009
By MissTickly (aka ‘TerriK’)
On July 27, 2009, Obama was not verified as ‘Constitutionally Qualified to be U.S. President’ by the standards of Hawaii’s Department of Health and Vital Statistics Registrar. Any assertions by Nancy Pelosi or anyone else must be reexamined under the following LIGHT:
THE KEY: ‘FILED by Local Registrar’ vs. ‘ACCEPTED by State Registrar’
We have two statements about two sets of vital records belonging to the President issued from Hawaii. An “original birth certificateâ€
If you want to keep up with the Obama cases, this list seems pretty complete:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22707260/Birt ... er-28-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Complete, yes. Accurate and correct, no.
I don't think this is a source for anyone except usurpation-deniers.Quote:
Total Cases: 64
Birthers win: 0
Constitution wins: 62
To my knowledge, the usurper hasn't won any case yet, because no judge has allowed one to be heard on the merits.
So far, the U.S. Constitution has found "no room" in the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution
An accurate heading would be,Quote:
Total Cases to date: 64
Constitution wins: 0
Usurpation-deniers win: 0
Weak and spineless judges, intimidated and coerced, wimp out on: 62
Perhaps the goons say, "Your Honor, you will recognize your precious granddaughters in these pictures taken this morning as they walked into their schools. But should your decision today allow the birthers any standing, public credibility, or legal wiggle room, you may never see your little darlings again. Because before the ink is dry on your decision, they will be whisked out of school and out of the country.
"Each and every one will quickly become a slave girl in some country where you will never find her and from which your State Dept. cannot extradite her. When they cease to amuse their slave-owners - for they will be sex slaves - then they will be addicted to heroin and turned out on the streets of New York or Miami or Detroit or Amsterdam until they get sick and die a gruesome death with AIDS.
"I said, 'You may never see your little darlings again.' Because it is just possible that in their excruciating pain and agony, they may call for you to come see them in their throes of death. But it will be too late.'"
I do not believe that an anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-law-and-order oligarchy of two federal executives, sixty Senators, six Supreme Court justices, and the downstream media can stand against the God who is just and the majority of We the People.
But why has NO person in authority willingly put his own life on the line to stand against the DC totalitarians?
We are in complete agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Calls and emails needed here! :)
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-998864.html#998864
I just finished reading Sarah Palin's book last night (good book, BTW), and from it I observed that she is pretty open about the harassing litigation and FOIA actions that almost shut down the State of Alaska and motivated her to resign (or 're-load' as her dad suggests). This 'overwhelm the system' tactic is right from the socialist's playbook, and can be used against them also.
Then tonight (while going through my 600 backed up e-mails), I read the following article from WND and couldn't help but want to cheer Larry Klayman on!
So, I'm wondering if the Executive Branch is liable under FOIA and FACA, does the Congress have a similar restraint, and can their shield of secrecy be destroyed as well? I'd really like to know what Dick, Nancy & Harry have been secretly planning and doing during the last fourteen months. Especially when certain electoral votes were tallied.
And is this possibly a new tactic regarding uncovering eligibility? If so, why not use it?
From the article below, I'm also wondering which side the Secret Service is on in this battle for our constitution and our republic. Somebody needs to interview Larry Klayman again.
================
Obama sued for secret abortion meetings
'In haste to socialize medicine, president violated commitment to transparency'
________________________________________
Posted: December 21, 2009
8:37 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119735
A legal firebrand whose work fighting corruption left both Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney on the defensive today took on Barack Obama, suing the president for secret meetings with Planned Parenthood and other lobbyists on his plans to nationalize health care.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch USA, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The law requires disclosure of records of meetings between the executive branch and outside industry lobbyists. It also requires access to meetings.
Klayman raised the same issues during the early years of the Clinton administration, contributing to the demise of the health care proposal championed by Hillary Clinton.
The lawsuit charges that in Obama's "haste to socialize medicine in the United States, and increase government control generally," he has "violated his commitment to transparency."
"It is widely known that President Obama and his surrogates have been holding behind closed door meetings with health care industry lobbyists, cutting deals to win passage of his health care legislation," Klayman said.
Klayman contends the president's conduct falls within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which "requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends."
As WND reported, Klayman had returned to Washington, where his efforts to bring light to the Clinton administration made him a high-profile political figure that was parodied on television in the "West Wing" character Harry Klaypool.
Klayman said after his return he was stunned by the level of corruption in the nation's capital, telling CNN's Lou Dobbs, "I've never seen it like this."
Klayman's new case targets "the particulars behind the secret deals the White House has been cutting with private health care concerns, such as the AMA, Pharma, Planned Parenthood, AARP, and other lobbyists seeking to feed at the trough of the government."
"Freedom Watch will not rest until the American people know all the facts about this historic and ill advised health care legislation, which most Americans – be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal – think we cannot afford and do not want as it is written," he said.
Klayman said he hand-delivered just days ago a letter to Obama under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and FACA seeking copies of all minutes and final decision documents.
His letter was accepted at the White House only after he was badgered and belittled by uniformed police officers, he said.
"Egregiously, upon hand delivering the letter to the Secret Service, agents of the president, the undersigned chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch was illegally detained … at the front gate of The White House, while he was on the sidewalk (he had never entered The White House grounds), questioned for over an hour in below freezing temperatures, and berated, harassed and threatened by two of the president's Uniformed Secret Service agents for his public advocacy and he was investigated; that is, these two Uniformed Secret Service agents violated the exercise of First Amendment freedom of speech rights," Klayman said..
"Fortunately, after over an hour of interrogation, false imprisonment, and violation of his civil rights, a very professional female line Secret Service agent appeared and in an appropriate and very respectful and kind manner set the undersigned free," he said.
Klayman's letter said, "It has been widely reported and it is independently known that you and your agents and representatives have been communicating and meeting with, in secret and behind 'closed doors,' lobbyists from the private pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Pharma), Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the American Medical Association (AMA) and other private interests, cutting deals to attempt to assure passage of your proposed health care legislation.
Klayman said the conduct "falls squarely within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act," because "these nontransparent communications and meetings with lobbyists and nongovernmental persons and groups constitute a de facto advisory committee under the letter and intent of the law."
Noting that Obama's plans would involve "one seventh of the nation's GDP," Klayman said he was demanding "on behalf of the American people … that you allow us to participate in any such communications and meetings and that you turn over all documentations, such as minutes and notes of and concerning all meetings and other records, immediately.
"Simply put, the public has the right to know what you promised to private special interests before the proposal legislation becomes law," he said.
The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
At the Washington Whispers column at U.S. News & World Report, Klayman's earlier work was cited.
"Larry Klayman made a name for himself investigating backroom deals in the Clinton and Bush administrations, like Bubba's Chinagate fundraising scandal and former Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings. Now it's president Obama's turn to face Klayman and his latest public-interest group, Freedom Watch," the column said.
Klayman said his stories of government corruption were not embraced by mainstream publishers. HarperCollins originally had agreed to publish his book – a nonpartisan view of why the current political climate is so unscrupulous – but shelved it because it was considered "too hot to handle," he said.
"I have never engaged in the services of a prostitute, but I have encountered a lot of w-h-o-r-e-s in my career – people and interests that will sell out their nation, if not their family, for money, power and fame," writes Klayman. "Unfortunately, such people exist at the highest level of all three branches of government, as well as in the media."
Piero Rivolta, publisher of New Chapter, an internationally-known businessman and author, said he took on the book because he believes freedom is not only a right but a duty.
"In these trying times, we need to encourage candid and creative thought for the good of the nation," he said. "I believe that 'W-H-O-R-E-S' is the kind of cutting-edge book that will wake people up, provoke important thought and dialogue."
Eric Kampmann, president of Midpoint Trade Books, the national distributor for "W-H-O-R-E-S," said Klayman's expose of corruption comes at just the right time, with confidence in Washington plummeting.
And, on the quo warranto front, this is notice of the first case from Chrysler, Leo Donofrio, and Steve Pidgeon.
=======================
Chrysler Dealers and attorneys Donofrio and Pidgeon file lawsuit in NYC
By Dianna Cotter
December 29, 3:17 PM
Portland Civil Rights Examiner
http://tinyurl.com/yatteym
This column reported December 5, 2009 that Leo Donofrio Esq. and Steve Pidgeon Esq. would be filing two cases against the Obama Administration and Government. The first a Bankruptcy case in the New York District, and the second to be filed in Washington D.C., a Quo Warranto case directly challenging Barack Obama.
It can now be reported the Bankruptcy case for the Chrysler Dealers who were stripped of their dealerships by the Obama Administration has indeed been filed. Donofrio and Pidgeon have filed a Rule 60 Motion to reconsider on behalf of 21 rejected Chrysler dealers. As was expected, several more dealers have joined in the suit as well. Docket number 6137 was filed today, 12/29/2009 Motion for Relief from Stay to Allow Appeal to Continue filed by Randyl Meigs on behalf of Tommy Manuel Chrysler - Jeep, Inc.. with hearing to be held on 1/21/2010 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 523 (AJG) Responses due by 1/14/2010. The Debtor in this case is the old Chrysler.
In their briefing, Donofrio and Pidgeon assert that the Judge in the original case, the Honorable Robert J. Gonzalez, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Federal Court, Southern District of New York, committed an unintentional fraud by miss interpreting an important witness statement. That witness was Fiat executive, Alfredo Altavilla, who stated that restructuring of the Dealer network needed to occur before the Fiat purchase of Chrysler could move forward. The Honorable Judge Gonzalez interpreted Altavilla’s answer to mean that a restructuring did not occur when indeed it did.
Attorney Donofrio has confirmed a report in the Post and Email as accurately depicting the basis of their case:
Altavilla had testified that the dealers’ agreements need not be rejected prior to the sale be formalized; but Judge Gonzales mistakenly related it thus in his ruling. The Memorandum of the movants explains this in detail, the crucial part of which responds to Judge Gonzales’ footnote, in which he says:
“Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.â€
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Assuming that the first case will lead to a settlement with no admission of guilt, will there still be a second case to be filed?
If so, will it be pursued to the fullest extent of the law?
Or, to receive the settlement most advantageous to the plaintiffs in the first case, must every dealer with standing because of damages agree not to bring a Quo Warranto suit?
I don't like the sound of the QW being dependent upon the auto dealers' suit. Certainly someone has to finance a QW, but I don't expect the Donofrio-Pidgeon team to receive any settlement money in time for a QW to affect the 2012 election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
Now Pastor James David Manning of Atlah Ministries in Harlem, where Columbia Univ. is located,
says that no one in his class at Columbia has any recollection of him. He was not in the yearbook.
We're talking major gaps in his c.v. here. Perhaps Pakistan?