Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

I am saddened and very angry...

BORN IN THE USA?
Judge dismisses California eligibility challenge
Plaintiffs promise appeal of ruling protecting Obama
Posted: October 29, 2009
2:02 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama's eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to an Internet image of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama's campaign.

The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm
that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.

A Wikipedia page has been cited by dozens of bloggers after it listed Siddarth Velamoor as one of the newest law clerks for Carter – who today released his ruling dismissing the complaint in the Barnett v. Obama case in the Central District, Southern Division Court in Santa Ana, Calif.

Velamoor is also listed in the Martindale lawyer database as an associate of international law firm Perkins Coie, the same law firm of Robert Bauer – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – and the same Washington, D.C., lawyer who defended President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.

As WND has reported, Federal Election Commission records for "Obama for America" show that the lobby organization has paid Perkins Coie exactly $1,666,397.01 since the 2008 election.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation confirmed immediately that his clients – two of about four dozen in the case – would be filing an appeal. California attorney Orly Taitz, representing the rest of the clients, also promised not only an appeal of this decision, but future cases that will be filed.

"This [opinion] looks like it was written by the defense," she told WND.

She described the fight against Obama as "very tough."

"He has more power than anybody, unlimited financial resources, and a lot to hide," she said.

"Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the president was actually born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be president," Carter wrote.

However, Obama's long-form original birth certificate has remained under seal. The image posted by his campaign on the Internet is a different document, a "Certification of Live Birth," that apparently is computer generated and has been challenged by a number of critics over its authenticity.

In fact, the authenticity of the "Certification of Live Birth" has been a focal point of numerous court challenges to Obama's eligibility, and Taitz earlier submitted to Carter a copy of what purported to be a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama, asking for permission to verify whether that was, in fact, authentic.

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.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

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.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"


"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Carter's dismissal revolved around his determination that the plaintiff's lacked "standing" to bring the complaint, including those plaintiffs who were third-party candidates in the 2008 presidential election.

"The court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate's qualifications, while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election," he said.

He warned, "Defendants' argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the court to pass judgment that plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference.

"This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results," he said.

But he also said once Obama was sworn into office on Jan. 20, the question no longer was over a potentially ineligible candidate but of the removal of a sitting president.

Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, hours before the complaint was filed. However, Obama also took the oath of office the next day, on Jan. 21, after the complaint was filed, because he stumbled over the words during the Jan. 20 event.

"In order to cure plaintiffs' perceived injury, the court would need to wade deep into the waters of the president's official duties – in fact, it would have to declare that the president could no longer perform any official duties. The separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave," Carter wrote.

He also cited the separation of powers doctrine and the Constitution's assignment of the power of impeaching a sitting president to Congress.

Carter cited Kreep's arguments that Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for president.

"There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment."

WND reported several days ago on a separate challenge to Obama's eligibility that also was taken to the appellate level.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114411

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Has anyone paid any attention to the Impeach Obama Campaign.com? Are these folks unaware that we can't impeach a usurper that has no constitutional eligibility to the office? Or do they simply believe that the legitimacy effort will fail and they should pursue this direction?

a letter to Floyd G. Brown of Impeach Obama Campaign:

Mr. Brown, if you believe the Lord is leading you this way, I'm not discouraging you. But, no, don't count me in, for a multiplicity of reasons.

1) The Congress is stacked against us, with 60 Democrats in the Senate, plus two Democrats who ran as Republicans, Senators Collins and Snowe of the People's Republic of Maine.

2) Impeachment is for a sitting President of the United States, not for a squatting Resident of the White House. Only a duly elected official can be impeached. A usurper can be removed by a lawfully empowered Quo Warranto action in the District of Columbia. But a usurper cannot be impeached, because he is not a legitimate President, only a de facto President - actually, a fraudulent impostor.

For example, if Osama were Commander-in-Chief instead of Obama, no one would attempt to discharge him from military responsibilities. The Marines, backed by the Army, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, and the Virginia state militia, would simply capture him and relocate him to more appropriate quarters at Gitmo.

If Saddam Hussein were in the White House instead of Barack Hussein, no one would attempt to impeach him. The Secret Service would simply arrest Hussein, remove him from the premises, and ship him to Baghdad to be hanged for treason by a jury of his peers. Or would that be, "tried for treason by a jury of his peers and hanged." No matter... Saddam's already dead.

3) There is a much easier way to end the usurpation. Instead of getting 51 Senators out of 100 to vote for impeachment, we get one U.S. District Judge out of 93 or 94 to order discovery of evidence. As soon as the Hawaii Dept. of Health and the Royal Archive in London reveal the actual birth documents, it's set and match, game over. Mr. Obama will have to resign under a cloud of condemnation from the court of public opinion, just as Richard Nixon did in 1974.

We may not even have to wait for the documents from Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, or the Hawaii Dept. of Public Health, or the Passport Office of the U.S. State Dept., or the naturalization authorities in Jakarta, Indonesia, or the Social Security Administration, or the Selective Service System, or the financial aid office of Occidental College in LA, or Columbia University or Harvard School of Law or the Equifax/Experian/Trans Union credit bureau or the Illinois bar or the Illinois legislature or the Communist Party USA or the New Party or even his personal physician.

Lack of public confidence will make it impossible for him to rule. No one will fear him. Fewer and fewer people, not even his employees, will do his bidding. Eventually, he will have to resign, when he can't get a pizza place to bring him food to eat... or when the D.C. police arrest him for trespassing on government property.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8693236/1952- ... 3-Chapter1
When Barack Obama II was born in 1961, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 then in effect read:

Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
...
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

His 18-year-old mother was not old enough (present in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14) to confer U.S. citizenship to her son born outside the United States. "Not a U.S. citizen at birth" obviously implies "not a natural born U.S. citizen."

The last word: there is no need to pursue impeachment, as difficult as that would be. Simply get discovery of evidence from one judge, and then contact ICE to have the illegal alien deported to Kenya. Maybe Raila Odinga will have a job for him.

Sincerely in Christ,

MinutemanCDC_SC

You know, I've been thinking about that Nairobi newspaper inserting the "Kenyan-born" angle, and a couple of possibilities ...

They might have been well-aware of at least the dual citizen angle of the Kenyan dad conferring Kenyan citizenship-at-birth to BHO, and therefore simply abbreviated it as Kenyan-born ("born to Kenyan loyalty") ...

or

I wonder about the REAL date of birth and it made me think about how the rest of the world handles dates. In the U.S., the date of 08-04-61 or 8/4/61 would be August 4, 1961. But over in Europe, and probably in its colonies, and a whole lot of other places the position of month and day-of-month are reversed. That same sequence of numbers would be the 8th day of April (the 4th month) of 1961.

There's a whole lot that doesn't "compute" about Stanley Ann, like how she seemed to have been set to go to college at U of Washington or in Chicago right out of high school and then poof! The family packs off to Hawaii, and she enrolls at UH. She disappears from that campus by January of 1961 when it's logical that she might have taken classes through the spring if she wasn't due to give birth until August. There is alleged to be a photo of her from summer 1961 in swim wear in which she doesn't look pregnant at all. And then it's confirmed that she registered for UW classes in August 1961 when baby would have been just weeks old.

Maybe the date she became pregnant ought to be moved up, and the date BHO was born should be moved up, and then there's all kinds of time to give birth and get things recorded "American style" in Hawaii where 8-4-61 isn't exactly a lie, but it sure could be a misinterpretation.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by For WorldNetDaily, Bob Unruh

A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama's eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to an Internet image of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama's campaign.

The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.

To remove the criminal usurper from the position of Commander-in-Chief, the United States must have the military overturn the coup d'état Mr. Obama has perpetrated. His dithering on Afghanistan, refusing to give his yea or nay to Gen. McChrystal's request for reinforcements, is a life-and-death prod to action for the Joint Chiefs and flag grade officers.

Only the military has the armor, the firepower, and the will and determination to stand up to Is|amist terrorist cells, the Nation of Is|am, black gangs, Latino gangs, the Mafia, the Mob, and the Chicago Machine, the Democratic National Convention, the Democrat super-majority in the U.S. Congress, and the hitmen who killed Quarles Harris, Freddie Mac CFO David Kellerman, Donald Young and friends, Ron Brown, Vince Foster . . .

[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]

Originally Posted by "For WorldNetDaily, Bob Unruh":1y9nf1bc

A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama's eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to an Internet image of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama's campaign.

The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.

To remove the criminal usurper from the position of Commander-in-Chief, the United States must have the military overturn the coup d'état Mr. Obama has perpetrated. His dithering on Afghanistan, refusing to give his yea or nay to Gen. McChrystal's request for reinforcements, is a life-and-death prod to action for the Joint Chiefs and flag grade officers.

Only the military has the armor, the firepower, and the will and determination to stand up to Is|amist terrorist cells, the Nation of Is|am, black gangs, Latino gangs, the Mafia, the Mob, and the Chicago Machine, the Democratic National Convention, the Democrat super-majority in the U.S. Congress, and the hitmen who killed Quarles Harris, Freddie Mac CFO David Kellerman, Donald Young and friends, Ron Brown, Vince Foster . . .[/quote:1y9nf1bc]

You are correct. And...maybe they will.

The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.

And so, what's the name of this law firm? Chicago based I bet.

Originally Posted by Rockfish

The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.

And so, what's the name of this law firm? Chicago based I bet.

From an anti-birther blogger, the firm in the case is identified as Coie Perkins which has law offices in several cities. The initials of the law clerk hired out of the firm and the date he started his clerkship (October 1, 2009) are mentioned.

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=3887

From this ...

http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/oct200 ... 1019-1.htm

there is a reprint of the John Charlton report

Carter shows his ethics: hires lawyer from Obama firm, as clerk Oct. 1st
October 17, 2009 by John Charlton

UNIMAGINABLE, UNBELIEVABLE, OUTRAGEOUS MOVE
by John Charlton

(Oct. 17, 2009) — In a stunning blow to the impartiality of the American Judicial system, Federal Judge David O. Carter, who is hearing the case Barnett vs. Obama, in the Central District, Southern Division Court at Santa Ana, California, has just hired a lawyer who works for a law firm where Robert F. Bauer, one of Obama’s top lawyers is a partner. And that, just days before the Oct. 5, 2009 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, in which his demeanor radically changed, according to Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Siddharth Velamoor is the lawyer chosen by Carter to serve as one of his two official clerks, from Oct. 1, 2009, till Sept. 30, 2010, according to Wikipedia. Velamoor is listed as an associate with Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Seattle, Washington. It is not clear if he has broken his relations with the firm.

Robert F. Bauer, is a partner of Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Washington, D.C.. His bio at the company identifies him as holding the Chair of the Political Law group at the firm; general counsel to Obama’s Campaign for America and general counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

Mr. Bauer’s wife is none other than Anita Dunn, the Whitehouse Communication’s Director.

Mr. Bauer, who represented Obama in a case challenging his eligibility in the spring, wrote a letter on April 3, threatening a citizen if he should continue to seek justice in the courts. You can read more about that case and letter here.

Since it appears that Siddharth Velamoor could be influenced by Perkins Coie, if the case did not go Obama’s way; his presence in Judge Carter’s chambers clearly impugns the integrity of the court, and will be the cause of dismay among the general public. Indeed since Velamoor will in the near future need a job reference from Perkins Coie, he will always have to be careful not to offend them politically.

This appearance of grave impropriety, leads the objective observer to ask (1) whetherVelamoor has separated his ties with the firm; (2) who suggested to him to apply for a clerkship with Carter; (3) was this before or after the case Barnett vs. Obama was filed; and (4) did Carter know of the relations between Velamoor, Perkins Coie, and Bauer.



Posted from here:

Click here: Carter shows his ethics: hires lawyer from Obama firm, as clerk Oct. 1st «

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... k-oct-1st/

There are also some interesting tidbits in the comment section.

Perhaps Judge Carter had NO SAY in who was appointed as his law clerk. It's inconceivable that potential conflict of interest questions are not thoroughly explored in the hiring process. These people are attorneys, they understand conflict of interest.

Whether Judge Carter did this purposely or was forced (or tricked) the implications are terrifying. Is there nothing Team Obama cannot corrupt?

From the same Post&Email:

[UPDATE 10/27/2009: The Post & Email has published a supplementary report on Velamoor's connections to the progressivist agenda.]

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... eadership/

[quote][size=150]Velamoor linked to Progressive Think-tank & Democratic Party Leadership
October 27, 2009 by John Charlton

JUDGE CARTER HAS CHOSEN A CLERK WHO’S FAMILY HAS TIGHT CONNECTION TO NWO CHANGE AGENDA
by John Charlton

(Oct. 27, 2009) — There’s an old saying, “Noting is coincidence!â€