Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by cayla99

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

When oh when will Dr. Taitz victory, however small it may seem, become national news???? Is this not the story of the decade? What is going on with Fox News??

Shhhhhhhhhh it is a secret


Has anybody seen FreedomFirst since this news came out?

Nope. I thought he was with you Cayla?!

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by cayla99

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

When oh when will Dr. Taitz victory, however small it may seem, become national news???? Is this not the story of the decade? What is going on with Fox News??

Shhhhhhhhhh it is a secret


Has anybody seen FreedomFirst since this news came out?

Nope. I thought he was with you Cayla?!

Now TB that is how nasty rumors are born

Leo didn't address the 'may' vs 'shall' wording, but this article does help with additional view of the quo warranto statute.

==================

[b]Quo Warranto For “Interested Personsâ€

I believe Orly has the heart of a lion and the tenacity of a pit bull when it comes to this case. However, I don't think she has a clue as to what she should be doing and is going to screw up every avenue we have, getting cases dismissed so they can never be tried again, simply on technical issues resulting from her cluelessness on the procedures of the courts.

Originally Posted by cayla99

I believe Orly has the heart of a lion and the tenacity of a pit bull when it comes to this case. However, I don't think she has a clue as to what she should be doing and is going to screw up every avenue we have, getting cases dismissed so they can never be tried again, simply on technical issues resulting from her cluelessness on the procedures of the courts.

Cayla, you may be right. However, none of us can know what she has in mind or what her strategy might be. One thing....have we seen any high power attorney out there with any wins under their belt? I admire her courage and strength and maybe she is the catalyst to get people off their duff and muster their own courage to stand up and do something. In the absence of any other serious efforts out there, ordinary Americans with a thirst for the truth should all pray and support this brave lady as much as possible.

When a High Churchman criticized Dwight L. Moody's street evangelism methods,
Moody replied, "Sir, I believe in the way I'm doing it more than the way you aren't doing it."

Recommended reading:

Obama’s COLB Lacks Legal Veracity. What Now?
10/04/2009
by MissTickly aka Terrik.
_________________________________________

[quote="KenDunbar"][size=117]For those opposed to the historical definition of “natural born citizenâ€

On Obama's short form birth certificate that we see on the internet, there is this phrase stamped on the bottom:

"Date filed by registrar" and the date "Aug. 8,1961."

1. "Date accepted by registrar": But as I understand it---and from what I have seen on other Hawaii birth certificates displayed on the internet---a valid Hawaii birth certificate up to at least 1985 should have the following: "Date accepted by registrar".

2. As I understand it, the phrase "Date filed by registrar" could mean that the person was not born in a hospital.

3. One question I have is this: If Obama's birth certificate is stamped with "Date filed by registrar" on "Aug. 8,1961", at what point in the past 50 years was Obama's 1961 birth certificate moved up into the more legally important category of "Date accepted by registrar"?

a. 50 years is obviously a very long time, so I would think that sometime in those long 50 years, Obama's birth certificate would move up from status of "Date filed by registrar" to the more legally important status of "Date accepted by registrar."

b. Go ahead and check your short form birth certificate if you have one, and tell us if there is a stamp like "Date filed by registrar" like on Obama's short form, or if there is a more important stamp like
"Date accepted by registrar."

c. Suggestion: If your short form birth certificate has "Date filed by registrar" instead of the more serious "Date accepted by registrar"---"accepted" is the key word here---then I suggest that you contact your state officials and demand to know why your birth certificate has "Date filed by registrar" instead of the more serious "Date accepted by registrar.

4. My point is this: If the Obama short form birth certificate we see on the internet has "Date filed by registrar" instead of the more legally important "Date accepted by registrar", then there is something seriously wrong with the Obama birth certificate, because it only has the worthless "Date filed by registrar."

5. So, in my opinion, resolving the "Date filed by registrar" vs. "Date accepted by registrar" issue could go a long way in answering the question of whether Obama was or was not born in Hawaii.

6. That is, if Hawaii officials are holding an Obama birth certificate with "Date accepted by registrar" stamped on it, then they have a moral and ethical duty to release it to the public.

7. But if Hawaii has no Obama birth certificate with the stamp "Date accepted by registrar", then Hawaii officials have even more of a moral and ethical duty to tell us, because Obama could be in a lot of trouble if there is NO Obama Hawaii birth certificate that is stamped with "Date accepted by registrar".

8. NOTE: If you were born in Hawaii, do you have a Hawaii short form birth certificate like the one Obama displays on the internet? Does it have "Date filed by registrar", or does it have "Date accepted by registrar"? Let us know.

9. Born in a non-Hawaii state: Do you have a short form birth certificate from a state other than Hawaii? Does it have something like "Date filed by registrar" on it, or does it have something like "Date accepted by registrar"? Let us know.

10. If you were born in a hospital in a non-Hawaii state, does your short form birth certificate say something like "Date filed by registrar", or does it say something like "Date accepted by registrar"?
I'm asking because I read on the internet somewhere that "Date filed by registrar" could mean that the person was NOT born in a hospital.

11. Myself, I guess I'm lucky, because I have been able to save my long form birth certificate, the one with the names of the doctor and the hospital on it, so I have never had the need to order a short form birth certificate.

SCOTUS: No Private Right To Quo Warranto.
Posted in Uncategorized on October 11, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

Since federal case law pertaining to the writ of quo warranto is so scarce, research on the issue is rather simple. This is why I am shocked and confused as to why the DOJ did not cite the case UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION. I recently explained the strict holding in the case – that no US District Court other than the DC District Court may entertain a quo warranto proceeding.

The deception is circling on all fronts. Decepticons are busy issuing defective legal analysis alleging that there is a private right to bring quo warranto against a United States national office holder. I can tell you with certainty that there is no such right now, and there was none at the common law. But don’t take my word for it. Instead, review the following passages from the leading United States Supreme Court decision pertaining to quo warranto: NEWMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. WILLIAM J. FRIZZELL: http://tinyurl.com/ygycrpm

Usurpation of a public office from an early day was treated as a crime, and, like all other crimes, could be prosecuted only in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers. When a judgment was obtained against the intruder he was not only ousted from his office, but fined for his criminal usurpation. A private citizen could no more prosecute such a proceeding in his own name than he could in his own name prosecute for the crime of murder… (Emphasis added.)

There was never a private right to bring quo warranto. It was always brought in the name of the government. This is further illustrated by the SCOTUS as follows:

In 1902 Congress adopted a District Code, containing a chapter on quo warranto which though modeled after the English statute, differed therefrom in several material particulars. The writ was treated as a civil remedy; it was not limited to proceedings against municipal officers, but to all persons who in the District exercised any office, civil or military. It was made available to test the right to exercise a public franchise, or to hold an office in a private corporation. Instead of providing that ‘any person desiring to prosecute‘ might do so with the consent of the court, certain restrictions were imposed and one enlargement of the right was made. These provisions have never received judicial interpretation. This case must, therefore, be determined according to the special language of that Code, in the light of general principles applicable to quo warranto,—the prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise. (Emphasis added.)

While all of the above sets the stage, the following establishes definitive precedent by the SCOTUS on this issue:

The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. (Emphasis added.)

And the following is the policy behind the restriction:

But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such ‘third person’ must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings. (Emphasis added.)

Beware of false sentinels.

Get ready, you are going to be hearing much more about the writ of quo warranto in the days and weeks ahead.

Leo C. Donofrio Citizen Attorney
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

More recommended reading, well researched and well-written by Linda A. Melin:

Barack Obama and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who seeks to broaden "natural born Citizen."

Congress has attempted several times to redefine "natural born Citizen" during the past 35 years.

S.R. 511 certified Sen. McCain but was passed to circumvent Mr. Obama's ineligibility for the Presidency.