Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Computer terminals at every nursing station mean that RN's post all patient events before leaving for the day. But 48 years ago, nurses and techs sent their handwritten records of patient events to data processing. During those dark ages, the stack of handwritten records was not sorted by date, by name, or by account number before being entered into the system.

Data processing clerks posted pt records in whatever random order they arrived in the basket. They had to be filed correctly within five days to assure Medicare reimbursement, but it was entirely possible, even probable, for individual records for one day to be filed after some records for the following day. Waiting for the attending physician's signature often caused a record to arrive late in DP (and DP would be blamed for the delay).

In 1961, filing and posting at the State of Hawaii Div. of Vital Records would have been no different, IMHO. There would have been no way to have known whether all of the entries for one day had been posted before beginning the posting of entries for the next day. Within a small range of variation, the order of the record numbers proved nothing about which patient event occurred first.

The same go for land records. It was not unusual to find all the records on a piece of property recorded within a week of each other to be entered on to the record books slightly out of order. IF their were a large number of BC's entered before his with children born up to a week or two after he was born, then I would say it was a red flag. But one cert of children born just one day after him is not a red flag. IMHO

Originally Posted by cayla99

Has anybody heard how todays hearing in front of Judge Carter turned out?

No news is good news. It means that there has not been a peremptory dismissal without considering Dr. Taitz's detailed arguments.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com
http://americangrandjury.org/
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/
http://misstickly.wordpress.com/
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/ (may be slow to load?)

Posting courtesy

Please post lo-o-o-o-ong links in small print, so as to keep the right margin within the page view.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/doh-reverses-course-releases-index-data-for-president-obama-stanley-ann-and-barack-sr-no-records-for-maya-exist/

Alternatively, fold each long link onto two lines, included together within one "url=" function.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/doh-reverses-course-releases
-index-data-for-president-obama-stanley-ann-and-barack-sr-no-records-for-maya-exist

Thank you for helping others read your post.

[size=117] Lady Liberty before Carter’s Bench

October 5, 2009 by John Charlton
DR. ORLY TAITZ TO DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS TODAY IN SANTA ANA

LIVE UPDATES TO APPEAR AT BOTTOM OF THIS REPORT, AS THEY HAPPEN

by John Charlton

(Oct. 5, 2009) — At 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight Savings Time, Dr. Orly Taitz, esq. went before Judge David O. Carter in the Federal Court House in Santa Ana, California, USA, to defend the rights of her plaintiffs to standing in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al..

There are few times in history when transcendent ideals and historical persons or events coincide; fewer still when a historical person takes on the mantel of these ideals.

Today is one of those days, and Dr. Orly Taitz is one of those historic figures.

But since Obama’s crime of usurpation touches us all, Dr. Taitz has undergone this metonomic transformation, since she is representing virtually Lady Liberty herself, that is America, our beloved Nation.

The Post & Email will be reporting news about this hearing as soon as possible.

This current post is being published at 11:00 AM Pacific Time, just 1 and a half hours after the beginning of the hearing. It is expected to end within the hour, so check back for updates to this article.

Sometime after 11:30 AM — Recess break is supposed to take place. Its been already a long hearing, which likely means that the Motion to Dismiss is going to be at least in part denied, and some plaintiffs granted standing. That would mean discovery would be ordered either today or this week!

——————–

ALL TIMES PACIFIC TIME / LOCAL TIME IN SANTA ANA

UPDATE 11:45 AM: It is rumoured that Judge Carter said during the hearing, “Obama will not be testifying, because he does not remember his own birth!â€

my gut is telling me he is going to rule against this. He just wanted to wait until he was in the safety of his chambers since the crowd all seemed to want our constitution to be followed.

[quote="MinutemanCDC_SC"][size=117] Lady Liberty before Carter’s Bench

October 5, 2009 by John Charlton
DR. ORLY TAITZ TO DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS TODAY IN SANTA ANA

LIVE UPDATES TO APPEAR AT BOTTOM OF THIS REPORT, AS THEY HAPPEN

by John Charlton

(Oct. 5, 2009) — At 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight Savings Time, Dr. Orly Taitz, esq. went before Judge David O. Carter in the Federal Court House in Santa Ana, California, USA, to defend the rights of her plaintiffs to standing in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al..

There are few times in history when transcendent ideals and historical persons or events coincide; fewer still when a historical person takes on the mantel of these ideals.

Today is one of those days, and Dr. Orly Taitz is one of those historic figures.

But since Obama’s crime of usurpation touches us all, Dr. Taitz has undergone this metonomic transformation, since she is representing virtually Lady Liberty herself, that is America, our beloved Nation.

The Post & Email will be reporting news about this hearing as soon as possible.

This current post is being published at 11:00 AM Pacific Time, just 1 and a half hours after the beginning of the hearing. It is expected to end within the hour, so check back for updates to this article.

Sometime after 11:30 AM — Recess break is supposed to take place. Its been already a long hearing, which likely means that the Motion to Dismiss is going to be at least in part denied, and some plaintiffs granted standing. That would mean discovery would be ordered either today or this week!

——————–

ALL TIMES PACIFIC TIME / LOCAL TIME IN SANTA ANA

UPDATE 11:45 AM: It is rumoured that Judge Carter said during the hearing, “Obama will not be testifying, because he does not remember his own birth!â€

I have been planning for the Final Option for along time. Thuggery and Intimidation CANNOT and WILL NOT change the words of the Constitution of The United States of America.
As an American, I have my Faith, Family and Country...
And By GOD IF OBAMA and his Cronies will take ANY of those Three from Me.

Originally Posted by cayla99

my gut is telling me he is going to rule against this. He just wanted to wait until he was in the safety of his chambers since the crowd all seemed to want our constitution to be followed.

Cayla,

I'm in some agreement with your thoughts. The best we can hope for if Judge Carter decides against the plaintiff is to get a written position stating why he decided for the defendant. If he's a good judge, he'll tell what needs to be fixed on the next gambit.

On a separate note, I'm a bit concerned with another view of this Obama situation I hadn't focused on before now.

At this time, I think it is fair to say that Barack Obama is a fraud and usurper. We know it. The DNC knows it. Congress knows it. Africa knows it. Everybody but the American public knows it. Acknowledging that, no one in government admits it openly because that would signal end game.

So we have a very real situation where our POTUS is susceptible to blackmail, and that's bad for the country. I haven't really thought through this whole scenario, but if he is a fraud, he can be easily manipulated by, say, unions, foreign countries, political hacks, etc. You get the idea.

Just another reason why we have to get rid of this guy as soon as possible.

Remind me again, how did we get in this mess?

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by cayla99

my gut is telling me he is going to rule against this. He just wanted to wait until he was in the safety of his chambers since the crowd all seemed to want our constitution to be followed.

Cayla,

I'm in some agreement with your thoughts. The best we can hope for if Judge Carter decides against the plaintiff is to get a written position stating why he decided for the defendant. If he's a good judge, he'll tell what needs to be fixed on the next gambit.

On a separate note, I'm a bit concerned with another view of this Obama situation I hadn't focused on before now.

At this time, I think it is fair to say that Barack Obama is a fraud and usurper. We know it. The DNC knows it. Congress knows it. Africa knows it. Everybody but the American public knows it. Acknowledging that, no one in government admits it openly because that would signal end game.

So we have a very real situation where our POTUS is susceptible to blackmail, and that's bad for the country. I haven't really thought through this whole scenario, but if he is a fraud, he can be easily manipulated by, say, unions, foreign countries, political hacks, etc. You get the idea.

Just another reason why we have to get rid of this guy as soon as possible.

Remind me again, how did we get in this mess?

Good luck trying to Blackmail the most powerful man in the world. He could do anything and the press and people would fall in place. If push comes to shove the documents to make it all go away will be manufactured and supplied. Im just saying if I had that kind of power I could make pretty much anyone or anything go away, just like were seeing with the continued dismissals.

BORN IN THE USA?

Obama can't get eligibility case dismissed

Judge listens to arguments, says he will issue decision later

Posted: October 05, 2009
4:29 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A federal judge in California today listened to government lawyers argue that a lawsuit over President Obama's eligibility should be immediately dismissed but refused to grant their request, saying he would make his decision and announce it later.

The result came this morning from U.S. District Judge David Carter, who already has set a tentative trial date for the dispute Jan. 26, 2010. The judge also already had lawyers draw up a tentative schedule for hearings and deadlines in preparation for the trial.

WND previously reported on plans for the hearing handled by attorneys Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, each representing separate clients.

The lawsuit was brought by several political candidates and party officials, including former U.S. ambassador Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party.

They are suing Obama alleging he is not eligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement for a "natural born" citizen in the Oval Office. Forty-six of the plaintiffs are represented by Taitz, who has worked on a multitude of lawsuits over Obama's eligibility, and two – Drake and Robinson – are represented by Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

Kreep told WND after the hearing it appeared to him the judge was expecting answers and failed to get them from government attorneys during the hearing.

"He was asking the [Department of Justice] to explain impeachment. If he really was [legitimately president], how would that work."

Kreep said he argued impeachment wasn't relevant, since "you have to have a valid, elected president." He said a court hearing with full disclosure of evidence is required, since the impeachment provision wouldn't technically apply to someone who never was qualified to be president.

Taitz was contacted by WND but declined to comment on today's hearing.

But Kreep said he argued that a simple numbers formula also doesn't apply. Many of the government arguments have noted the candidates who are plaintiffs, such as Keyes, did not have a reasonable mathematical probability of winning the presidential election.

That assertion is not relevant, Kreep said he argued. Had Obama's ineligibility been publicized before the election, Hillary Clinton likely would have become the nominee, and she might have been vulnerable to other candidates, he said.

Carter's order that no discovery of evidence will be allowed until his decision was continued today.

Lawyers representing Obama in the case claim "no single federal district court has the power to declare that a sitting president is not fit or qualified to occupy the office, and is, therefore, not a legitimate president."

The attorneys have argued the election process and Constitution allow only Congress to examine the credentials of a presidential candidate, and in any event, that opportunity is long gone.

They have argued, "Plaintiffs simply are not the proper parties to challenge President Obama's qualifications or fitness for office and this court is not the proper forum to decide this issue."

The plaintiffs, however, have argued on behalf of their "real, tangible injuries" from Obama's placement in the White House. If he is not eligible, "they have been denied a free and fair election."

They have suggested the simplest resolution is to put Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other government officials under oath and question them about Obama's birth and birth records.

They also have indicated plans to ask, if given permission by the court, for copies of Hawaiian records regarding Obama's birth, Washington state records regarding him and his mother, his Harvard Law School records, passport records and a long list of other documents.

According to Sept. 25 court documents the DOJ filed in response to Kreep's opposition to dismissal, the DOJ states, "The arguments made by these plaintiffs, in large measure, completely ignore the fact that Barack Obama is the president of the United States and seek to treat him as simply a candidate for office. Try as they might, plaintiffs cannot conceal the fact that what they are really seeking in this case is nothing less than a determination by this United States District Court that President Obama should be removed from office. The preposterous nature of this assertion is readily apparent. No single United States District Court has the power to try the question of whether a sitting president of the United States should be allowed to remain in office."

Kreep has requested immediate access to Obama's records, such as his original long-form birth certificate and his Occidental College records. The plaintiffs' suspicion is that those records would undermine the president's statements that he is a "natural born" citizen, which could disqualify him. For example, an original birth certificate could indicate it was a "delayed" filing, which could open the door for a birth location outside the United States.

Likewise, the Occidental College records could be significant if Obama attended on a program for foreign students or represented himself as a foreign student at the time.

The DOJ also filed a separate response to Taitz' opposition to dismissal Sept. 25, stating, "Much of the opposition filed by these plaintiffs is a disjointed polemic, completely devoid of citation to any case or statutory authority. Defendants will not waste the court's time, or that of undersigned counsel by seeking to respond to the many irrelevant statements and references made therein."

Both Taitz and Kreep have expressed significant differences of opinion in how the case should be handled. Should the lawsuit proceed, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been heard in open court.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums probably exceeding $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112015