Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

WOW!!!! This woman is brave!!!!

Letter to Chief Justice Roberts 03.26.09.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
26302 La Paz ste 211
Letter to Justice Roberts 03.26.09.

Mission Viejo CA 92691
03.26.09.
Counsel for the Petitioners in Lightfoot v Bowen
Counsel for the Petitioners in Easterling et al v Obama et al

Chief Justice John J. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States

This is to remind you that on 03.13.09. I have presented you with the motion for reconsideration in Lightfoot v Bowen, Quo Warranto in Easterling et al v Obama et al and a 164 page dossier of suspected illegal and criminal activity surrounding Mr. Obama and his supporters, that was written on 03.01.09 and sent on Attorney general Holder on 03.03.09. In front of 1200 students and faculty of the University of Moscow, Idaho you agreed to review those documents. This is a matter of National Security and National urgency and as of yet there was no response from you or Attorney General Holder, nor Robert Mueller, Director of FBI, that was copied on this dossier.
On 03.25.09. I arrived to the Washington DC and personally had delivered copies of the above documents to both the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice.
I have received a letter from your clerk William K Suter, that relates to the pleadings received on the 23rd and does not mention any documents submitted on the 13th, and I am not sure you are aware of this letter, as you didn't seem to be aware of other matters in the Supreme Court. Mr. Suter stated, that Quo Warranto and Writ of Mandamus don't comply with the rules and I can file a petition for exraordinary writ of MANDAMUS, and I have to file it with the court. He didn't specify what rules he is talking about and this statement seems to be incorrect, since I have filed Quo Warranto as an original jurisdiction case, which doesn't need to be in the form of extraordinary writ of Mandamus. Mr. Suter also stated that the Rules of this Court make no provision for the Motion for Reconsideration of an application, however the rules of this court make no provision for many other out of the ordinary acts, that happened on your watch, including and not limited to:
1. Justices of the Supreme Court meeting behind close doors with Obama, who is a person of interest and subject of litigation of my petition, that was scheduled to be heard only a few days later.
2. Any mention of my case, stating that Mr. Obama is ineligible for US presidency, being erased from the External docket of the Supreme Court right after the inauguration and two days before the case was supposed to be heard.
3. Your clerks lying to the citizens and defaming me by claiming that the above events didn't happen, even though hundreds of citizens saw it and are prepared to testify in court in regards to such events.
4. Clerk Danny Bickel on his own accord refusing to file one of two supplemental briefs I've submitted.
5. Your Justices having no clue about any of Obama ineligibility cases, that they supposedly heard in conference five times.
6. Supreme Court Justice getting all of this information and doing nothing about, while under an obligation to act and correct the wrong.
7. Supreme Court Justices getting information in regarding to criminal activity and not reporting it for further investigation by law enforcement.
8. Supreme Court Justices deciding not to hear on the merits any and all cases in regards to president's ineligibility, while finding more value in a case deling with the rights of smokers of light cigarettes to sue tobacco. It appears the right of a few trial lawyers to make millions of dollars of such litigation was more important then the right of 305 million Americans to have a legitimate president.
9. Yesterday, on 03.25.09. I was able to meet with the National Selective Service Director, Mr. Chatfield, who could not explain any inconsistencies and suspected signs of forgery in the Selective Service Certificate presented to the public by Mr. Obama. For example, according to the retired federal agent Coffman, the serial number of the certificate on the top shows first two numbers to be 08, meaning it was created in 2008, while on the bottom an extra 8 was added, to make it look like it was created in 1980. Similarly, National Director was clueless and provided no explanation to the wrong seal, wrong dates and wrong form number.
10. Recently I have read the book "Making your Case", that Justice Scalia autographed for me. On page 77 it states " Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that the judges don't like to spend a lot of time deciding what to decide. Indeed in most courts they won't even read the brief in support of your petition but will rely on summaries (or on selection of particular briefs) by law clerks'. When you have unscrupulous clerks and the issue is National Security this is inconceivable.

One of old maxims in legal practice, is that the substance trumps form. The substance dictates, that under such conditions, it is your obligation to uphold the constitution of the United States and to issue a stay to Mr. Obama's functioning in the capacity of the president and commander in Chief and give him a reasonable time of 24 hours or 48 hours to present all of his vital records or sign a consent for release of such records. If he is not willing to do so, then per the 20th amendment, Mr. Biden becomes a temporary president for two or three months, until a new president and be chosen in a special election.
Justice Roberts, if you are unwilling to do so, it is your constitutional and moral duty to resign and let another Justice uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Respectfully submitted.
and is being hand delivered on my way to the airport, flying back to California,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Counsel for the Petitioners.


Posted by Dr. Orly Taitz at 3/26/2009 7:38 AM | View Comments (10) | Add Comment

All emphasis is mine

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Volunteers needed to Distribute!!!!! Please help!!!



http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-872043.html#872043

Continuation of a friendly discussion with my co-worker, FreedomFirst...

I did not put the decree in print, but for legibility's sake, here it is.
(Bold emphasis is mine.)
__________________________________________________ _____

D. No. 5797?

In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
STATE OF HAWAII
================
AT CHAMBERS
Before the Honorable SAMUEL P. KING, Judge Presiding
OPENLY IN THE PUBLIC COURT ROOM OF SAID JUDGE

STANLEY ANN D. OBAMA,
Libellant,
vs.
BARACK H. OBAMA,
Libellee.
GRIEVOUS MENTAL SUFFERING

Decree of Divorce

On this 5th day of March A.D. 1964, at the Court House in the City of Honolulu, openly in the Public Court Room of said Judge, came on duly to be heard the petition of said above named Libellant, of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, praying that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between them, the said LIBELLANT and LIBELLEE be dissolved by reason of the alleged grievous mental suffering inflicted upon Libellant by Libellee;
And the said Libellant and her attorney, GEORGE L. T. KERR, being present in Court before said Judge, due proof was made in this Court that the said parties are legally intermarried, and that the allegations in said petition are true.
It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, That the bonds of matrimony existing between the said LIBELLANT and LIBELLEE be and the same are hereby dissolved. This decree to take effect from and after the date of signing and filing hereof.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Libellant be and she is hereby granted the care, custody and control of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, the minor child of the parties hereto, with the right of reasonable visitation in the Libellee, and further that the question of child support is specifically reserved until raised hereafter by Libellant.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, this 20th day of March, 1964.

HENSHAW, CONROY, & HAMILTON
(George L. T. Kerr)
1410 First National Bank Bldg.
Honolulu, Hawaii
Attorney: for Libellant

(signed) Samuel P. King
Judge of the Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii
Division of Domestic Relations

It is scary where we are going and the lawyers leading the charge on this are due all the thanks and respect we can give.

BORN IN THE USA?
Eligibility lawyer says Homeland Security shadowing him
Reports incidents involving county, federal agents
Posted: March 25, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawyer spearheading the effort in Washington state to bring light to the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says he was shadowed all day today by officers with the federal Department of Homeland Security, the Snohomish County sheriff's office and the Everitt city police department.

"There's definitely observation," attorney Stephen Pidgeon told WND. "Maybe observation in anticipation of making an arrest."

Pidgeon has been the attorney for Washington state plaintiffs challenging Obama's eligibility to be president under the Constitution's demand for that office to be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen. Dozens of similar cases have been filed around the country since the election and many have been dismissed, often because judges rule the plaintiffs don't have "standing" to bring a complaint.

The Washington state case, however, cites state law that vests in citizens the right to raise questions about an elected official's authority, effectively granting standing to those plaintiffs.

The case, although it has been filed, has not been brought to court for hearings yet.

Pidgeon told WND today he contacted his personal defense attorney, and also was in contact with the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization advocating for civil liberties and religious and personal freedoms.

Pidgeon is affiliated with the organization and told WND that there would be a letter sent inquiring about the surveillance.

He said he first became aware of the situation when his wife left their rural home early in the day and reported there were three law enforcement vehicles parked nearby, along with three black Suburban-style vehicles carrying camouflage-wearing agents, apparently from Homeland Security.

Pidgeon said he has been "outspoken" about the Obama administration and its validity due to the eligibility questions, but didn't realize he was "qualifying as an enemy of the state."

He immediately reached out to a number of individuals through e-mail.

"My only protection is to contact the people I know," he said.

Officials of the Department of Homeland Security did not return multiple WND messages seeking a comment on the situation. Officials with the Snohomish sheriff's office and the Everett city police department said they didn't know anything about it.

"Where Homeland Security is concerned, obviously there are people working for the Obama administration with little consideration for free speech," Pidgeon told WND.

He said when he left his home, he had a sheriff's vehicle "marking every turn that I made."

"There's definitely observation," he said.

"The fact of the matter is that we have taken the position and it is consistent with Orly Taitz' position that Barack Obama failed to establish his bona fides by the election on November 4," he said. "We alleged under Democratic National Committee rules he had a burden to establish to the DNC's satisfaction his eligibility. He never did.

"As a consequence the burden remains on him. He didn't meet the burden of proving his eligibility to hold the office."

He said voters cannot simply rewrite the Constitution's eligibility requirements in a presidential vote. For one thing, only 52 percent voted for Obama, and the Constitution requires approval from three-fourths of the states for an amendment.

He also cited U.S. senators and congressman who have credited the online "fact" organizations such as snopes or factcheck for authenticating Obama's eligibility.

"Any senator who would rely on snopes or factcheck to establish a judicial opinion whether or not this person has documented his eligibility is a fool," Pidgeon said. And citing a federal judge who said the issue of Obama's eligibility already had been "twittered," he said that is "tantamount to malpractice."

Several hours after Pidgeon returned WND's call, he called again.

"We are definitely under surveillance and it's coordinated with Homeland Security," he said.

He said one of his associates had been followed from his home to the law firm's downtown office, and the associate was stopped just outside the building.

"The police officer claimed he didn't have brake lights working," Pidgeon said. "But he does."

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

An ex-military officer has raised the stakes in the ongoing dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, filing a criminal complaint against the "imposter" with the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."

Story at: wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92835

It would seem to be common sense to first get a conviction in a civil suit, which needs to be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence, and with that conviction standing, then to bring suit in a criminal case, where the District Attorney must prove the guilt of the accused defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that is not the reason for choosing a civil or a criminal lawsuit.
__________________________________________________ _____

public.findlaw.com/library/legal ... cases.htm
lCivil Cases vs. Criminal Cases - Key Differences
From the Federal Judicial Center

Civil cases usually involve private disputes between persons or organizations. Criminal cases involve an action that is considered to be harmful to society as a whole. Below is a comparison of the key differences between civil and criminal cases.

Civil Cases

A civil case begins when a person or entity (such as a corporation or the government), called the plaintiff, claims that another person or entity (the defendant) has failed to carry out a legal duty owed to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are also referred to as "parties" or "litigants." The plaintiff may ask the court to tell the defendant to fulfill the duty, or make compensation for the harm done, or both. Legal duties include respecting rights established under the Constitution or under federal or state law.

Civil suits are brought in both state and federal courts. An example of a civil case in a state court would be if a citizen (including a corporation) sued another citizen for not living up to a contract.

For example, if a lumberyard enters a contract to sell a specific amount of wood to a carpenter for an agreed-upon price and then fails to deliver the wood, forcing the carpenter to buy it elsewhere at a higher price, the carpenter might sue the lumberyard to pay the extra costs incurred because of the lumberyard's failure to deliver; these costs are called damages. If these parties were from different states, however, then that suit could be brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction if the amount in question exceeded the minimum required by statute ($75,000).

Individuals, corporations, and the federal government can also bring civil suits in federal court claiming violations of federal statutes or constitutional rights. For example, the federal government can sue a hospital for overbilling Medicare and Medicaid, a violation of a federal statute. An individual could sue a local police department for violation of his or her constitutional rights--for example, the right to assemble peacefully.

Criminal Cases

A person accused of a crime is generally charged in a formal accusation called an indictment (for felonies or serious crimes) or information (for misdemeanors). The government, on behalf of the people of the United States, prosecutes the case through the United States Attorney's Office if the person is charged with a federal crime. A state's attorney's office prosecutes state crimes.

It is not the victim's responsibility to bring a criminal case. In a kidnapping case, for instance, the government would prosecute the kidnapper; the victim would not be a party to the action.

In some criminal cases, there may not be a specific victim. For example, state governments arrest and prosecute people accused of violating laws against driving while intoxicated because society regards that as a serious offense that can result in harm to others.

When a court determines that an individual committed a crime, that person will receive a sentence. The sentence may be an order to pay a monetary penalty (a fine and/or restitution to the victim), imprisonment, or supervision in the community (by a court employee called a U.S. probation officer if a federal crime), or some combination of these three things.

After what happened to "joe the plumber" BEFORE the election, I am deeply concerned for all of those involved in seeking the truth. I commend their bravery and efforts.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Kenya (and Is|am) allowed multiple wives. Even though Barack Obama Snr. was still married to Kezia Obama in Kenya, and Stanley Ann D. Obama knew it, she got a divorce rather than an annulment. Doesn't their divorce indicate that the State of Hawai'i considered them to be married just as Kenya did?

Look up my earlier post where I laid out the research into the Kenyan laws during colonial rule by U.K. They had a bifurcated arrangement: "customary" marriages (tribal and no paperwork) and "statutory" marriages (requiring marriage licenses). A Muslim could practice polygamy via "customary" marriages to a series of wives; however, he could not undertake a "customary" marriage to one wife and then try to undertake a "statutory" marriage to another woman. He had to formalize a divorce (in a statutory manner) from the "customary" wife if he wanted to undertake any statutory marriage to anyone other than that original "customary" wife. Otherwise, he would fall prey to being charged with bigamy.

So, the answer to your last question is that Kenya would have regarded Obama Sr. as a bigamist if he brought Dunham back to Kenya with him and called her his wife, by reason of a Hawaiian ceremony which (allegedly) had had a marriage license issued because that would have been analogous to a "statutory" marriage. And further, the order signed by the judge in Hawaii could rise to no greater knowledge than what the lawyer (and/or his clients) provided to the court.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

[
I did not put the decree in print, but for legibility's sake, here it is.
(Bold emphasis is mine.)
__________________________________________________ _____


And the said Libellant and her attorney, GEORGE L. T. KERR, being present in Court before said Judge, due proof was made in this Court that the said parties are legally intermarried, and that the allegations in said petition are true.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, this 20th day of March, 1964.

HENSHAW, CONROY, & HAMILTON
(George L. T. Kerr)
1410 First National Bank Bldg.
Honolulu, Hawaii
Attorney: for Libellant

(signed) Samuel P. King
Judge of the Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii
Division of Domestic Relations

If the marriage license had been entered as proof in the divorce proceeding, it would still be a part of the records in the court's files and it should have been turned over as part of the documentation requested by the private investigator for the divorce paperwork. (The privacy laws might shield it from release by the Dept of Health in Hawaii, but if it became part of a "public record" in a lawsuit, then it lost any protections it might otherwise have enjoyed.) It didn't get turned over.

If there were "proofs" they must have relied on oral testimony from "witnesses" (Dunham's parents?) but then, there should have been transcripts produced in response to the request for the divorce paperwork in the court's files. But no transcripts were copied and given to the Private Investigator, so maybe no testimony was taken at all. Since Obama Sr. had signed off in agreeing to the divorce, my educated guess is that his signature was treated as all the more "witnessing" the court needed.

Oh, and by the way, it's important for lay folks to understand that judges typically don't write up the orders they sign. Their clerks don't either. The judges will typically ask one of the lawyers appearing before them in a case to write up the proposed order and then they sign it. (Judges and their clerks will write full-length decisions on cases, but when it comes to orders, the judge tells a lawyer to "write up and submit a proposed form of Order" and that's how Orders get authored.) So the words you're reading in that Order, with a probability approaching 99.9%, weren't written by Judge King. Attorney Kerr would have prepared the Order for the judge's signature.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

See also:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/hawaii/lgb.rights.laws

MARRIAGE ESTABLISHED BY REPUTATION PRESUMED VALID. --Where the marriage is established by reputation, it will be presumed, in the absence of any showing that would repel such conclusions, that the parties were legally competent to marry, and that they first secured a license and complied with all other requirements necessary to make valid the marriage contract.

IN A SUIT FOR THE ANNULMENT OF A MARRIAGE, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE MARRIAGE IS VALID and the burden is upon the libelant to prove the incompetency of the libelee to enter into the marriage.

EVIDENCE OF MARRIAGE. --Celebration of a marriage is generally proved by the record thereof or by the witnesses present. The latter is considered stronger evidence, but it is not necessary to produce the record or the celebrant, unless perhaps the other evidence is purely circumstantial.

CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE RECORD AS EVIDENCE OF VALID MARRIAGE. --Where the certificate of the marriage record was admissible, it was not necessary to produce the license to marry nor to prove that the agent who granted it had the requisite authority.

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

ABSENCE OF FILED MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE, if the requirements of this section have been met.

It appears that even a questionable marriage is presumed valid until proved invalid.

Even with another Obama wife (Kezia) living in Kenya, Judge King wrote a Decree of Divorce which stated,

Originally Posted by Judge Samuel P. King, First Circuit, State of Hawaii

...due proof was made in this Court that the said parties are legally intermarried, and that the allegations in said petition are true.
It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, That the bonds of matrimony existing between the said LIBELLANT and LIBELLEE be and the same are hereby dissolved.

Whether Judge King acted rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly, knowingly or in ignorance of the prior marriage to Kezia, his decision stands until overturned. To my knowledge, the Obama law firms are not contesting the Obama-Dunham marriage, an action which would be a PR disaster... not that that would stop them.

FreedomFirst, are you preparing a legal brief to nullify that marriage?

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

An ex-military officer has raised the stakes in the ongoing dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, filing a criminal complaint against the "imposter" with the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."

Story at: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92835

[size=14]It would seem to be common sense to first get a conviction in a civil suit, which needs to be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence, and with that conviction standing, then to bring suit in a criminal case, where the District Attorney must prove the guilt of the accused defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil cases don't arrive at "convictions" they only reach verdicts, whether rendered by a jury or a judge. The lesser standard of proof to reach that verdict might find information about the civil matter being excluded from a later criminal trial, to avoid prejudicing a jury. The retired Navy officer hasn't really filed a "complaint" in a criminal matter; he's gone to the U.S. Attorney and acted in the capacity of a "complaining witness" to request the U.S. Attorney to pursue a criminal case against Obama. But, the U.S. Attorney probably won't do any such thing because he doesn't have sufficient proofs to show what Obama's status really is; he needs the birth certificate and Obama won't release it. That doesn't leave the U.S. Attorney without any recourse, however. He could go into court on some other theory like Quo Warranto.