Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

[ED.: Judging from some comments since this first-hand report of Maj. Cook's mock trial,
it escaped notice by most, being the last post on page 58. I repost it for that reason.]

Maj. Gen. Childers, Lt. Col. Graef, Maj. Cook v. Col. Good, Col. Wingate, Col. MacDonald, Dr. Robert M. Gates, USSecDef, Barack Hussein Obama, [de facto] President of the United States

Courtroom proceedings are unfamiliar to me, but Major Stefan Cook v. Col. Goode et al was a disheartening eye-opener about how unjust "justice" can be. This morning at 9:30 AM, July 16, 2009, I saw either a preview of the Tribulation or a look back at the Inquisition, in U.S. Distruct Judge Clay Land's second-floor courtroom in the U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Columbus, Georgia - eight miles north of Ft. Benning.

Everything in this courtroom seemed backwards and turned upside down.



Judge Land acted like an aggressive prosecutor, Dr. Taitz, the prosecuting attorney, acted like a defender of her wrongly attacked client, and the Army defense attorneys acted like bystanders who refused to get involved. Perhaps this travesty would be better understood if you were to read this account in reverse order, so you could see how the usual eventualities and bogus arguments, such as lack of standing, were pre-addressed and ruled out before they were brought forward anyway.
_________________________________________________

1) Dr. Taitz asked that this case serve as representative of the other 170 or so military personnel. She told Judge Land that if he did not accept a representative case on behalf of the others, she would potentially have to bring each one before his court. He declined her request without comment, apparently not taking it seriously.

The first blonde female Army defense attorney mentioned Navy Capt. Schiver, Maj. Cook's civilian job supervisor at defense subcontractor Simtech in Pensacola. Capt. Harris had named a July 15, 2009 (yesterday), date of deployment to Afghanistan for Maj. Cook because Maj. Cook had asked for a July 15th date. He had volunteered before Mr. Obama took office, and reaffirmed that on May 15, 2009. She claimed that he should not be allowed to change the request he had so recently made. She said the proper procedure was a ???????-43 review process as to whether orders should be revoked.

She stated that the 11th Circuit has addressed this military [deployment?] procedure as early as 2003; yet, Maj. Cook did not use those channels.
__________________________________________

2) Dr. Taitz only made a ten or fifteen minute presentation, in which she presciently disassembled and defused the "no standing" ruling which Judge Land would make a half hour thereafter. This was hardly a shot in the dark, there having been 48 previous "no standing" rulings by self-shielding judges, none of whom has been willing to step out of line and get involved in actually judging between the fraud and the victim.

An almost as blonde female Army Major followed Dr. Taitz with a ten or fifteen minute recitation of how the military expected issues to be addressed through channels [in an ideal, untainted world]. The Army defense attorney stated that Maj. Cook had not taken an Article 138 complaint through channels, which is the prescribed procedure.

Dr, Taitz objected to that statement as not true, because she had taken the presentment to Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking what was the proper route for determining the legitimacy of the chain of command for orders. Adm. Mullen's legal counsel told her that because the [de facto] Commander-in-Chief is a civilian, he is not subject to the military determination of legitimacy of chain of command. Therefore, an Article 138 complaint could not require verification of legitimacy of a civilian CinC. [Therefore, Article 138 through channels would be pointless in this particular case.]

Then the Army defense attorney simply restated the necessity of submitting an Article 138 complaint through channels. Otherwise, the Army defense attorney comported herself satisfactorily and without offense.

Judge Land asked Dr. Taitz if she had evidence of her statement. "Evidence... Evidence!" She said she could present a written affidavit, but she had not brought the original determination, not expecting that the Army attorney would make such a false statement. Judge Land then denied Dr. Taitz' testimony in lieu of written evidence, leaving the argument in the Army's favor, that an Article 138 complaint had not been submitted through channels, and Maj. Cook had gone outside of channels and filed in a civilian court.

The Army defense attorney claimed that filing in a civilian court was improper for determination of legitimacy of chain of command, and the judge appeared to agree. N.B. the Catch-22: the JCS had already determined that a military complaint process cannot validate a civilian Commander-in-Chief, yet Maj. Cook cannot validate a military chain of command in a civilian court;. Did anyone mention that this eventuality had never happened before, and that it would cause a Constitutional crisis?

Although this contradiction was apparent to all, Judge Land accepted it into the record. More than once, I feared I would be reprimanded for my involuntary gasps of disbelief. I should have been able to restrain one moan, though. By contrast, Maj. Stefan Cook sat ramrod straight and, although I could not see his face, he did not make any untoward motions throughout.
__________________________________________

3) After a 15 minute recess, Judge Clay Land closed the case by rebuking Dr. Taitz for four or five minutes in a statement apparently prepared BEFORE the trial, the gist (NOT AN EXACT QUOTE) of which was the following:

"This court is ruled by the same Constitution your client uses to prompt his refusal of military orders. You came here intending to uncover Pres. Obama's birth certificate. The Constitution defines the separation of powers, and this court will not overstep those bounds to rule on the Executive Branch.

"Maj. Cook, your orders to Afghanistan have been revoked; you will not be getting any more orders. Retired Maj. Gen. Childers and Lt. Col. Graef attached their names to this case based on possible orders; this court will not rule on hypotheticals. Your employment in Pensacola is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Your complaint fails to meet the three requirements for standing. Therefore, this case is dismissed for lack of standing.

"You have your orders revoked; that is what your restraining order demanded."

Of course, that was not at all the intent of Maj. Cook's request for a temporary restraining order. As a volunteering officer, he could have revoked his own orders at any time up to deployment. Maj. Cook's plaint was for clarification of the chain of command, so that he could lawfully go to Afghanistan, as he had volunteered to do and wanted to do. But the judge specifically said he would not order discovery of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, that being interference by the judicial branch with the executive branch according to the separation of powers . . .

Actually, that is what is necessary, and what was intended by the checks and balances of a tripartite government. Separation of powers and checks and balances are opposing weights on the scales of justice. They must balance, or there is no justice.
__________________________________________

4) "Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies," Judge Land said. "The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

This bland statement does not communicate the contemptuous glare and hostile tone of voice which Judge Land showed the plaintiff, and especially Orly Taitz, when he read aloud the requirements for standing. Such "justices" hate her for challenging their unjust tyranny from the bench, their throwing the law under the bus and ruling according to agenda and worldview.

Originally Posted by U.S. District Judge Clay Land - read, not written

There are three requirements for standing:

I) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is
(a) concrete and particularized, and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;

II) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and

III) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

Thus, he spotlighted the irony:

I) Maj. Cook suffered injury in that his reserve status is probably revoked along with the orders for Afghanistan. The judge told him he would not be receiving further orders from the Army. The injury is concrete and particularized to him alone, actual and imminent, like day before yesterday.

II) Maj. Cook suffered injury in that the DOD had leaned on his boss to fire him from his job at defense subcontractor Simtech. Maj. Cook was fired from his civilian job less than 24 hours after his orders were revoked. Of course, DOD will claim there was no causal connection.

III) Injury would not only be addressed by a favorable decision, but a mere court order for discovery of the usurper's birth documents would end the reign of terror for everyone before it gets really, really dire.

Dr. Orly Taitz replied to Judge Land, "This is a mockery of justice."

And so it was. It merely covered the judge upon judicial review.

We all rose to show respect for the judge upon his two entrances. I had to force myself to rise to show him respect when he finally left. But, after the trial, I did render respect where respect was due - to Maj. Stefan Cook. I saluted him and told him he was the bravest man I had ever met. He said, "It's moral courage." I continued to stare at him, wanting to weep. He turned away, saying, "You make me want to cry." He could feel the emotion. Pray for this just man, unjustly persecuted to hide the wickedness of another [snip].

Someone said afterward that this was just the wrong judge. We all expressed our hopes for U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in California for Keyes v. Obama.

But today, this was truly a kangaroo court; the judge had even prepared his final opinion before the case began.
__________________________________________________ ____

5) On the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., and much-decorated Middle East combat veteran Major Stefan F. Cook patiently explained to hostile and provoking reporters about:

his uniform sprinkled with medals and ribbons and combat buttons;
his four combat tours in the Middle East vs. the "coward objector" slander thrown at him;
his volunteering for another Afghanistan tour under Pres. Bush, but since March, having second thoughts (Geneva Convention) about serving in combat under a de facto Commander-in-Chief who had not demonstrated his natural born citizenship so as to be a legitimate head of state;

the intricacies of citizenship vs. natural born citizenship;
non-binding Sen. Res. 511 approving Sen. John McCain's purported natural born citizenship vs. the absence of examination of Sen. Obama's bona fides (Dr. Taitz misspoke that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, although his Panama birth certificate states he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama);
that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents, not just one, plus birth on soil under U.S. jurisdiction;
Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations, and how its principles of international law were incorporated into the U.S. Constitution;
the 14th Amendment definition of citizenship and why that was irrelevant to natural born citizenship; yet its primary author, Rep. John Bingham, incidentally described natural born citizenship as birth on U.S. soil to parents who are citizens;
and so much more, in her inimitable meticulous detail.

That contrasted with the lack of opportunity given in court to present the same character witness and the history of natural born citizenship. It just didn't come up in the courtroom. Neither did Mr. Obama's proof of qualification or the lack thereof.

- MinutemanCDC_SC .... 7/16/09

I learned today that if you're lost in the backwoods of west Georgia at midday, with no shadows,
no road signs, the gas gauge on "E", and no bars on the cellphone, you're REALLY LOST!

MinuteMan,

You're right - I never read the court proceedings description you presented. Sorry about that.

Having said that, and acknowledging that the proceedings and the written decision are CYA efforts on the judge's behalf, I still think, now more than before, that Major Cook will have standing in a federal court - he has now suffered a quantifiable loss.

I would enjoy other comments in this arena.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

2. Standing requires an actual loss to the plaintiff. Cook had at the time NOT sustained a loss. Cook by now HAS sustained an "injury in fact" at Obama's hands (via the DoD) - namely his job, and maybe his military career. Will Cook continue his legal actions? TBD.

HighlanderJuan, I concur with your post, except for this one point. The DoD had already leaned upon Simtech, Maj. Cook's civilian employer, and the owner or manager there courteously explained that to Maj. Cook when firing him on the Tuesday evening before the trial, hours or minutes after DoD revoked his orders.

Judge Land stated that those damages were "outside the jurisdiction of this court," and Maj. Cook must seek redress in the proper court (in Pensacola, Florida). Will Maj. Cook continue his legal actions? Yes. Orly Taitz said to reporters afterwards that she will bring suit against Dod (and possibly Simtech?) on behalf of Maj. Cook in the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Florida.

Judge Land did not properly address the "actual loss => standing" point of law. He ignored it, just like he ignored Orly Taitz's interaction with Adm. Mullen, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That office told her that the [de facto] commander-in-chief, being a civilian, was not subject to a chain of command clarification by the military.

Yet, the Army attorney maintained that very Article 138 action through channels was the proper process in this case, and Judge Land agreed. He did not give Dr. Taitz a recess in order to retrieve the hard copy of the JCS ruling, and thus he did not consider it to be evidence.

Judge Cook had prepared his final opinion in advance, before the trial took place on Thursday, probably before the Simtech firing on Tuesday. His rulings were bogus, just like the other 48 judges' denial of standing.

Judge Land stated, "You will not be getting any more orders." He already knew that the Army was trashing Maj. Cook. How did he know that? Had he colluded with the Army in advance, before the case was heard? I don't know, but Maj. Cook was still in the Army reserves and in uniform at the time of the trial, and he had not been notified of any dismissal from the military.

This trial was nothing less than the persecution and martyrdom of an exemplary and valiant Army career, with illegal retribution against civilian employment, all because Maj. Cook stood up for the U.S. Constitution, in keeping with the Officer's oath.

Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you, falsely, for the sake of your country. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your place in history and in the heritage of your nation. For so they persecuted the patriots who were before you.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Judge Land stated, "You will not be getting any more orders." He already knew that the Army was trashing Maj. Cook. How did he know that? Had he colluded with the Army in advance, before the case was heard? I don't know, but Maj. Cook was still in the Army reserves and in uniform at the time of the trial, and he had not been notified of any dismissal from the military.

I had wondered about an in camera meeting when I read that point. I've been exposed to enough courtroom activity to know that government figures stick together, and in legal actions, in camera meetings are the rule, rather than the exception.

Probably happened here.

CNN/US Boss Is An Obama Agent - Hawaii does the avoid/evade dance

CNN/US Boss Is An Obama Agent

Thanks to Hat tip to Don Fredrick of the Obama File at www.colony14.net


Yesterday's stuff contained a statement extracted from an email memo composed by CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein and sent to a handful of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" staffers.

In the email, Klein states that birth data is now in electronic form and, "It seems this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef."

Klein's memo clearly implies that, because birth data is now in electronic form, the COLB, produced from this electronic data, is all there is. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can take it to the bank, Hawaii maintains an archive of Certificate of Birth documents.

Steve Cee decided to confirm if Klein's statement were factual and sent a series of emails to the State of Hawaii -- here are their replies, that contains facts that lay lie to Klein's assertions.

Hawaii's initial response to Steve's request for a copy of a long-form birth certificate was the standard crap we've been hearing for several months now, that "We issue only a computer-generated copy of the certificate, with limited information."

Unsatisfied, the tenacious Steve decided to to inquire further and dig deeper. Identifying himself as a genealogist, Steve specifically asked, "What does a person do in order satisfy (sic) a Long form or Vault requirement? Prompting the State of Hawaii’s second, and more detailed, reply, that provides the process necessary to obtain a copy of a vault-copy Certificate of Birth.

"The only records that can be photo-copied are those with diacritical marks which cannot be printed by computer. Otherwise, it would require an order signed by a judge specifying what record was needed..."

In every single statement coming out of Hawaii, the words are carefully chosen and structured, but this one clearly says, if you got a judge, we got the document. Eligibility
7/26/09 Hawaii Dances Around The Truth

Janice Okubo's comment to John Klein, "In 2001 -- the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless," is being used by the Obot community AND Hawaii to imply that Hawaii no longer has vault-copy Certificates of Birth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Documents may be batch scanned into a microfiche system, but the data in a computer database, converted from Hawaii's Certificate of Live Birth must be hand entered -- keystroke, by keystroke. The document can't be scanned because there is typed, stamped and hand-written entries on that document, and those entries are placed randomly within the document's fields.

According to the 2000 Census, there were 1,211,537 residents in Hawaii -- 999,308 were born there -- that's one million birth certificates that had to be handed encoded as part of Hawaii's transition to a "paperless" system.

There's approximately 50 entries that need to be transcribed from each document (names have several parts), so that's 50,000,000 transcriptions. Some of the data, such as "date of birth," needs to be converted into standard formats. If a data entry clerk were to transcribe one certificate every 15 minutes, the level of effort would be approximately 250,000 worker-hours. That's 125 data entry operators for a year -- if they have no meetings, and take no coffee, lunch, or comfort breaks. So you're really looking at 200 key-entry operators for a year -- plus a management team to oversee the project.

That's a BIG project, with a BIG budget. It should be relatively easy to verify such a project occurred because this project would be done by outside contractors. The project lifecycle includes request for proposal, proposal, contractor selection, organization, planning, training, execution, validation, etc. This is a 3 to 5-year project -- remember, we're talking state government here.

Now, when 50,000,000 transcriptions are made, errors will be made.

When documents, such as birth certificates, are converted to electronic media, the originals MUST be archived because of those errors. There must be backup, because these documents are used as a basis of all other documents and are often required for legal processes.

The prudent person would be required to preserve the source document as backup for challenges to the database content. Government bureaucrats tend to be the most prudent people on the planet. Their primary work function is to cover their ass.

There is no way, in hell, that the directors and managers of Hawaii's health department destroyed those original documents. Their exposure would be enormous.

So Klein's statement, "that paper documents were discarded in 2001 when the department went paperless," is a damnable lie. He's saying the paper documents don't exist, and Hawaiian civil servants are implying the same thing -- unless the issue is pressed -- then they admit they still have them, reluctantly.

Remember, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands required Certificates of Birth, for services and benefits as recently as June 8, 2009. They can't destroy documents that are a requirement for government services and benefits.

But the clincher is Fukino's statement, that she personally saw and verified Obama's original birth certificate on October 31, 2008.

Hawaii has the documents. They're down there somewhere in a clean, air-conditioned building -- and they're accessible.

The Obots can lie, lie, lie and otherwise obfuscate until the cows come home, and it won't change that fact.
Posted by Aristotle The Hun at 2:58 PM
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/

Saturday, July 25, 2009
This is why I call him AKA Obama


Kenneth L Allen

Ref: Federal Lawsuit

Dear Kenneth,

I read a copy of your lawsuit, and wish you well in it. I too would sue if I had enough time left on earth. I am writing to provide you with some additional insight that you may already be aware of.

In the event that you are not I wish to inform you of the possibility that the name Barrack H Obama may never have legally been restored to Barry Soetoro.

In most states a petition for name change IS required by law, and becomes PUBLIC RECORD when the court grants the name change. I spent many months searching all possible databases, and newspaper files in an attempt to determine exactly when his birth name was legally reinstated. I was not able to find any evidence that the name Barrack H Obama was ever legally reinstated.

If this is still the case then the person occupying the Whitehouse is legally Barry Soetoro. This means that he isn't even the legal POTUS.

In reality he is pretending to be the POTUS. I also believe that many in Congress are fully aware of this imposter, but are afraid to try to do anything about it. This name change petition is extremely important to your lawsuit, and you should pursue action under FOIA to force the record of name change to be revealed, where and when it was legally carried out. If no record is found then there is ACTIONABLE doubt of his being the legal POTUS. He registered, and campaigned under the name of Obama. That is the name that he must legally hold, to be the legally elected POTUS. This all needs to be seriously researched.

I am 77 years of age, and in failing health. I have passed all of this on to you in the hope that you might be able to use this info to add strength to your case.

We need to nail him, preferably to a cross.

Best Regards,
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities." (Romans 13:1a)

In the United States, the highest governing authority is the Constitution, which begins, "We the People."
Not "We the Government." Not "We the Wealthy." Not "We the Noble Aristocracy."
And certainly not "We the Washington Political Bureaucracy."

Behind the Constitution, "We the People" create all governing authority in the United States,
from the authority bestowed by our Creator, Who is the ultimate Authority and Lord of all.
______________________

To the Rev. P. G.,

Do I fight against the government for my rights? Probably not. Jesus didn't.

Do I fight against the government for its wrongs? Absolutely!

One need look no further than the prophets, Moses, David, Elijah, Amos, Habakkuk...

Not to mention the Maccabees, Jewish patriots from 167 BC to 37 BC.

"It is not lawful for you to have your brother[ Philip]'s wife," John the Baptist preached against whom but King Herod Antipas, who imprisoned John and eventually beheaded him.

And who were the Herodians, chief priests, Sadducees, "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" who caught the worst of Jesus' terrifying judgments? "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" They were the rulers and authorities of the people Israel.

Some good examples, among many, of activist Christians are:

William Tyndale, early Reformer and peer of Martin Luther, who translated and (in Germany) printed the English Bible, which makes up nine tenths of the King James Version of 1611. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey and King Henry VIII considered him the enemy of both the church and the state. They pursued him for ten years and eventually strangled him and burned him at the stake for "heresy and treason." Three years after Tyndale's dying prayer, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes," King Henry VIII published the "Great Bible,"

I need someones help! Call me stupid, but I have little time. Please guide me to the Amendment and section of the constitution that discusses natural born citizenship requirements as well as it's requirement for POTUS. I am particularly interested in finding out more about Obama's mother and how she could not bestow natural born citizenship status on her son since she wasn't in the country for a long enough period.

Also, I would like someones thoughts on how to respond to the following...

"...There is no way in hell that members of Congress and the Supreme Court would quietly sit by and not act or publicly say something if they had evidence that Obama was not constitutionally eligible for POTUS. Until there is credible evidence from a credible source, this is all just another conspiracy theory..."

I don't put anything pass Congress.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

I need someones help! Call me stupid, but I have little time. Please guide me to the Amendment and section of the constitution that discusses natural born citizenship requirements as well as it's requirement for POTUS. I am particularly interested in finding out more about Obama's mother and how she could not bestow natural born citizenship status on her son since she wasn't in the country for a long enough period.

Also, I would like someones thoughts on how to respond to the following...

"...There is no way in hell that members of Congress and the Supreme Court would quietly sit by and not act or publicly say something if they had evidence that Obama was not constitutionally eligible for POTUS. Until there is credible evidence from a credible source, this is all just another conspiracy theory..."

Sorry just got online, never without my pocket constitution

Portion Article 2 section 1

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.