Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

There has obviously been intimidation and coercion which obstructed justice. How can that be brought to light and made public? Is it necessary that the intimidated and coerced person testify, even if that would trouble his own house and family? Can anyone besides Judge Carter make a case that justice has been subverted by intimidation, coercion, blackmail, or some other specific criminal skulduggery?

Just brainstorming here, or maybe brainfogging, as I don't know where this train of thought will arrive... so don't ask me where I'm going with this. It should apply to something else besides the intimidation of Judge Carter. Maybe this unethical idea will lead to an ethical plan of action. To catch a crook may require "to think like a crook."

Even if a judge (not Judge Carter, specifically) were to adamantly oppose any local magistrate granting a warrant (and the judge would, if there were intimidation or coercion or nationwide deception), might the following apply to evidence gained as the result of a "misinformed" law enforcement officer's "Good Faith" belief that such a warrant exists?
__________________________________________________ _________


How Far Does Police "Good Faith" Go? The Supreme Court Creates Another Exception to The Exclusionary Rule
By SHERRY F. COLB
Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2009

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Herring. Herring addressed the question whether police officers may rely in "good faith" on erroneous information (inaccurately alleging the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant against a suspect) without compromising the resulting evidence, when the source of the error is another law enforcement agency.

The Court held that the answer is yes, provided the error is not sufficiently deliberate and culpable to justify suppression of the evidence. In this column, I will examine the question and conclude that the Court erred in further extending the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule of evidence.

What "Good Faith" Means in Fourth Amendment Law

The first thing to note about good faith in the Fourth Amendment context is that, despite the connotations of the phrase in everyday life, it has nothing to do with a police officer's subjective motives or intentions. The Supreme Court has instead used the phrase to refer to the objective reasonableness of a police officer's belief in the validity or existence of a warrant that is, in fact, invalid or nonexistent.

The second important fact about the "good faith exception" is that it is not an exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement that all searches and seizures be "reasonable." It is, instead, an exception to the rule that says that when police violate the Fourth Amendment, the resulting evidence is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of the victim of that unlawful search or seizure. Accordingly, the only time a "good faith" exception becomes necessary is when police have already violated the Fourth Amendment but a prosecutor still hopes to offer the evidence resulting from that violation in criminal court against the victim of the violation.

These two points are significant because they demonstrate why "good faith" is a necessary consideration only when police rely on a warrant (or similar independent legal authorization) as a basis for a search or seizure.
.
.
.
When police violate the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, with or without a warrant, the ordinary consequence is that a judge suppresses any evidence unearthed as a result of the violation. This means that the jury will not be able to consider tainted evidence in assessing the guilt or innocence of the defendant who experienced the Fourth Amendment violation.

Evidence resulting from unconstitutional conduct is not, however, always suppressed. The Supreme Court has indicated that unlike the Fourth Amendment itself, the exclusionary rule is not constitutionally-compelled but is merely an instrument for motivating conduct in conformity with the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court has applied the exclusionary rule selectively to those contexts in which its deterrent value will be greatest.

One exception to the exclusionary rule first emerged in United States v. Leon. The Supreme Court there held that if a police officer relied in objective "good faith" on a warrant that turned out to be invalid, then the evidence obtained would be admissible at a subsequent criminal trial – despite the presumed invalidity of the warrant. The Court explained that because the exclusionary rule serves to deter police misconduct (by suppressing the fruits of that misconduct), it would make little sense to suppress evidence resulting from a magistrate's error in issuing a warrant. The magistrate is specifically not an arm of law enforcement, and is therefore: (1) not the target of the exclusionary rule's deterrent objective; (2) not likely to try to subvert the Fourth Amendment (and therefore not in need of deterrence); and (3) not responsive to the suppression of evidence, given the magistrate's lack of a stake in the outcome of an eventual criminal prosecution.

In Arizona v. Evans, the Court extended the good faith exception to a case in which there actually was no warrant, but the Office of the Clerk of Court had made an error in its record-keeping and reported that such a warrant for the suspect's arrest was outstanding. A police officer, relying on the erroneous record, carried out an arrest, and the issue of suppression arose. The Court held that despite the absence of a warrant, the evidence found as a result of the arrest would not be excluded at the suspect's criminal trial. Because the police officer had relied in objective good faith on the erroneous record, the Court held, it would be inappropriate to apply the exclusionary rule.

The Court reasoned that the party that had erred in this case, the Clerk of Court, was part of the judiciary and therefore – like the magistrate – not subject to the temptation to subvert the Fourth Amendment. Further, it noted that the exclusionary rule was never meant to regulate courts' conduct. And finally, it pointed out that court employees would have no stake in the outcome of criminal trials and therefore would not be deterred by the suppression of evidence.

The exclusionary rule, in other words, is meant only for – and effective only against – the police. If police are acting in reasonable reliance on independent, non-police, government actors, the Court determined, suppression would impose a high cost without providing much of a countervailing benefit...

Originally Posted by Rockfish

PatriotPast wrote

Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, BUT you ALL need to realize the Govt. COURTS will do NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!!
ITS THE GOVT. FOR GODS SAKE!!!!! The only way I see this Usurper being removed is Forcibly by the Military, OR By 2 + Million people Marching on Washington and Taking The Town over.

The leaders of our military aren't about to lift a finger. They have allowed for the first time a turbin into a soldier's uniform.

Ya know, ya kinda gotta wonder about the idiot who suppsedly went crazy regarding the shootings at Ft. Hood. For too long, the security of our nation has been in the shadows. How could a possible terrorist infiltrate our military? Says a lot about the status quo, aye?

If the idiot is a terrorist, they'll never tell us..so we have to assume to a point..if this is the way the terrorists are going to infiltrate, live and then be set on their mission, we all have our workplaces to fear. Imgine, they plant an H1B here working at say, a bank. Years later afterwards, the plant is givin a call and is told what to do and where..so this bank worker goes on his mission to kill as many infidels as possible. The tradgety at Ft. Hood could be repeated.

I heard on the Sean Hannity radio show that this guy was over in the middle east and stated that islamists, most by far. all want the terrorists dead. What I'm wondering is if that is true, then the islamists in this country sure aren't making that perfectly clear..but on the other hand, you only hear about the violence and not the peaceful protests.

Understanding the Barnett v Obama dismissal

By: Devvy
November 5, 2009

Another lawsuit regarding Obama's citizenship was dismissed by a federal judge on October 29, 2009: Barnett v Obama. This immediately brought unwise threats against Judge David Carter on many web sites and blogs. While the frustration and anger continues to build each time one of these cases is dismissed, making public statements like "Carter has taken his last breath" doesn't help the situation. It might also bring those making such statements a visit from the Secret Service.

I think part of the problem is that most of us are not lawyers and it is difficult sometimes to understand these complex legal issues. This has been a learning process for so many of us. This case goes back to January 20, 2009. Orly Taitz wanted to get the lawsuit filed before Obama was sworn into office. According to the hearing transcript, July 13, 2009, page 22, Judge Carter says that Orly brought suit on January 20, 2009 at 3:26 pm. It does not state whether that is EST. Her office is in So. California (PST).

From all media accounts I could find, the swearing in took place a little before noon EST. As we all know, there was a 'flub' by Obama during the swearing in process by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, so there was a second swearing in the following day. Of course, this raised all kinds of questions regarding whether or not Obama was legally sworn in on January 20, 2009, however I believe that issue was put to rest.

From reading the court documents, there were procedural problems (service on defendant) that had to be addressed. It takes time to read all these transcripts and orders, but one must to understand the legal rulings. While Judge Carter ordered this case to go to trial on January 26, 2010, I strongly cautioned people that he still had not ruled on the defendant's motion to dismiss.

If you watch this short video clip of Dr. Orly Taitz at the 9/12 event in Washington, DC, she states that Judge Carter has ordered early discovery and that Obama must respond to her subpoenas and be in her office for a deposition within 30 days to produce a litany of records. "We can have him out of office in 30 days," rallied people to a fever pitch. But, was this a realistic forecast?

All the citizenship cases have been written about extensively on the Internet from both sides. In this particular post, John Charlton maintains that early discovery was not the product being sold to the American people:

Rumors that Carter has ordered expedited discovery are amiss

"This morning, Internet sites like Resistnet and Citizen Wells Blog are rife with rumours that Judge David Carter has granted expedited discovery in the action Barnett vs. Obama, in Santa Ana Federal Court.

"The Post & Email can confirm from first hand sources, that these rumors were based on the Referral order Carter issued yesterday and the previous court instruction regarding preparation for discovery, which should take place before the hearing on October 5th. This seems coherent with Judge Carter’s previous public statements, that procedures will be followed in the main case; which procedures did not call for expedited discovery at this time. Thus, The Post & Email can confirm that no expedited discovery has been granted in the principle action. The current dispute and ex-parte Application regard only the so-called Lavendar Document. Whether Judge Natazako will also review the Lucas Document is unclear at this time."

The Judge Natazako episode is covered in this seven page order by the judge: Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Modification of Magistrate Judge Nakazato's August 6, 2009 Order and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Nakazato; Granting Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal.

I can't find an order by Judge Carter that expedited discovery other than his comments below; see September 8, 2009 reference. Judge Carter uses the word encourages. Perhaps if one of my readers knows the link they can send it along.

If we back up a bit, there was a hearing on July 13, 2009. When I mentioned procedural problems above, you can read Judge Carter's statement beginning on page 19 regarding proper service of the defendant. Much excitement was generated out in the public domain because of comments made by Judge Carter during that hearing. See the transcript of the hearing, (page 21) where Judge Carter says he is giving Dr. Taitz "...a vehicle and an avenue to have this resolved on the merits." In other words, he was telling her to get the defendant served and move on to the next step. Judge Carter also restated on page 31 that he doesn't worry too much about procedure, but likes an open door courtroom "concerning the merits."

Everyone wants the case heard on its merits (Obama's dual citizenship) and that is the beauty of the Quo Warranto:

§16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.

In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead "not guilty" as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3544; 1981 Ed., § 16-3544.)

In Judge Carter's Order Setting Scheduling Conference (September 8, 2009), he makes this statement: "Unless there is a likelihood that upon motion by a party the Court would order that any or all discovery is premature, the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the Scheduling Conference. The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of Rule 26(a) and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be produced in the early stages of discovery, because at the Scheduling Conference the Court will impose tight deadlines to complete discovery." (See here, page 2).

Two days later, September 10, 2009, the defendants in the case filed an ExParte Application for Limited Discovery over the pending and upcoming hearing, October 5, 2009; you can read it here.

At this time, I do not know if any discovery was actually undertaken before the case was dismissed. But, I do know that a tremendous amount of hope was given, only to be taken away.

This is Judge Carter's ruling on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss that has caused such rage. The issue of standing is raised and on page 25, Judge Carter explains the Quo Warranto and that it must be filed in Washington, DC. He is correct if you read the Quo Warranto statute. Judge Carter simply cannot go around the jurisdiction issue in §16-3501. Well, he could, but in my humble opinion, it would be reversed on appeal filed by the defendants.

Judge Carter was not kind to Orly in his 30 page decision; see pages 28-29. In her own defense, Orly has posted her response in the form of a Declaration; see here. Regarding the individual named in items 8-10 in Orly's declaration, Larry Sinclair, he has posted his rebuttal to Orly's claims.

Orly also raised the issue in court regarding possible fraud by Obama and SSNs (social security numbers). See this transcript, page 8. Orly posted the findings by these investigations from national data bases some time ago on her web site. Because they were not in any particular order, I took many hours and separated them. Those files are below and list all the names, variations and addresses compiled by her investigators. I ran each one of them through the U.S. Postal Service's web site to at least see if the addresses existed; many did not. While I believe the investigators have the full SSNs, due to federal law, the last four numbers are not exposed.

Barack Hussein Obama
Stanley Ann Dunham (his deceased mother)
Michelle Obama

I do not know if Obama has used any of the SSNs from the aforementioned research, how many Barack Hussein Obama or Barack Obama's there actually are in this country. The same applies to the Michelle Obama file. The Stanley Dunham listings are peculiar in that they are all for a male. In a letter from licensed investigator Susan Daniels to Judge Carter, Ms. Daniels states:

"I am the private investigator who contacted Dr. Orly Taitz when I found that Barack Obama has been using a bogus social security number for years, which is a felony. I have been a licensed investigator for almost fifteen years and recognized it immediately as fraudulent."

While this may well be true, without any documentation to prove Obama used all those SSNs (For what purpose? Tax evasion, fraud regarding business transactions or campaign cash?), we just don't know. Several months ago, I had email exchange with an individual (I will not name for privacy), who believes Obama used his former home address for fraudulent reasons. This person seems to have good grounds support his allegation. However, only a full blown criminal investigation by law enforcement (like DOJ) would provide evidence.

Following Judge Carter's dismissal of the case, both Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, attorneys who represent the all the plaintiffs, indicated they will be filing an appeal. While I want Obama removed from office as badly as millions of others, I believe an appeal will meet the same fate. You might disagree. However, after watching dozens of cases get dismissed on standing issues, I am convinced, besides impeachment (of a lawfully serving president), a Quo Warranto is the legal instrument to pursue. While I have tried to find an individual who might qualify under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) as I discussed in a previous column, my efforts have not been successful to date.

Orly's plaintiff's have the option of filing new FOIAs (Freedom of Information Act request).

Orly has the option of pursuing the Quo Warranto with the District Court in Washington, DC. At this time, I do not know if she intends on doing so, but that statute was written specifically to remove a usurper. Rather than wait around for an appeal, why not pursue a legal process that is available? Of course, you could file an appeal and a Quo Warranto complaint at the same time if you want.

Are there any other options available besides those above? Yes, and Dr. Edwin Vieira covered it in a column last year:

"Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standingâ€

http://www.devvy.com/new_site/barnett_v ... 10509.html

Devvy, as usual, you are right on target. As Leo Donofrio has been saying for quite some time, quo warranto in D.C. is the way to go, and he is credentialed in the District to do it. But LD is waiting for a client or clients who will make the case for him, a notable client with obvious standing who cannot rightly be denied on technicalities. He also needs donations, which have all been going Orly Taitz's way lately. Neither does he have her passionate motivation to singlehandedly (and pro bono) keep the United States of America from becoming the Totalitarian Socialist States of America.

I suggested to Dr. Taitz that she hire LD - who won't work with her, but who may work for her, given a free hand to do things his way - and feed him clients, with donations attached. If not LD, then maybe Mario Apuzzo could be our U.S. champion.

But don't be so critical of the unstoppable Orly Taitz. She has been misquoted, taunted, unjustly sanctioned and fined $20,000 for filing a legitimate, non-frivolous case, and abused atrociously in the courts of more judges than District Judges Land and Carter. The vilification is without merit, and it comes not so much from the judges themselves as from the Perkins Coie lawyers representing the (Chicago Machine/Mafia/Mob, Is|amist, globalist, Marxist/Maoist/communist/socialist/anarchist, abortion-profiteering/pornography-peddling/homosexuality-flouting/dope-legalizing, anti-American/anti-Christian/anti-Israel, illegal alien supporting/open borders lobbying/amnesty pushing, Democratic National Committee, with the attendant hired hitmen) criminal cabal.

Specifically, don't blame her for filing eligibility cases outside of D.C.. She is trying to get evidence officially discovered in any federal court she can, in order to bring the facts to light before any judge who still has the authority to do something and the courage to stand against the regime.

Originally Posted by Judge Carter

The writ of quo warranto must [False - QW "may"] be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.

Dr. Taitz was filing quo warranto for Barnett v. Obama in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with precedent: QW for federal office in D.C. has been allowed in California in the past because of the remoteness of the District of Columbia from the plaintiffs, which made it a hardship for them, but not for the local U.S. Attorneys representing the defendant, who did not need to be present. Dr. Taitz already filed a related quo warranto suit in D.C., which was scoffed out of court. Been there, done that, got the tar and feathers to prove it. Mario Apuzzo's QW suit in the District met the same fate. Dr. Taitz discusses her QW experience, as hindered by US AG Eric Holder, at length here.

Reminds me of Cook et al v. Goode et al in Columbus, GA. Dr. Taitz related the decision of legal counsel for Adm. Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the military cannot investigate and verify the legitimacy of the Commander-in-Chief, because he is a civilian and not subject to the UCMJ. Minutes later, U.S. District Judge Clay Land agreed with the Army attorney, that an Article 138 for Redress of Grievances is the proper procedure for verifying legitimacy in this and every other case which questions a military chain of command. "La la la la la - we don't hear you! La la la la la..." I was there. Heard it myself. Useful idiots, stuck on stupid.

Originally Posted by Leo Donofrio

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3502 of the QW statute allows any 'third person' or citizen, and section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an 'interested person' to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.

That is true, Mr. Donofrio. But money is tight now, courtroom resources are limited, and time is of the essence. When the game isn't going your way, you have to cut your losses. You have to count the investment necessary to proceed and the possible return here and now, weigh it against the ROI if you should use your funds another day in a more copacetic environment, calculate the respective probabilities and make your final decision about whether to throw good money after bad or to count it a loss and start over from scratch, and then act, knowing that if you lose, the kibitzers will have known all along what you should have done.

When you're in enemy territory, in a crooked card game that is widely known to be rigged against you, you also have to be cautious about when to play your hand. You gotta know when to hold back; you gotta know when to fold. You also have to know who is packing heat and where are the exits, in case you win. The important thing is to stay alive and be able to come back another day and win your money back.

You may (or may not) know what cards Dr. Taitz was holding, but you couldn't measure the ebb and flow in the courtroom or see the white of the judge's eyes.
[quote="Quoting District Judge Carter's opinion in Barnett v. Obama, Leo Donofrio"][size=117]C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must [Must? It ain't necessarily so! The correct operative verb is "may"] be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.â€

Interestingly enough, BHO has told the world to stay away from Michelle Obama, and, in general, the world has stayed away from her. While reading Airborne's copy of Devvy's article and the original on Devvy's site, I came across a link to address search results for Michelle Obama (apparently not including her maiden name Michelle LaVaughn Robinson), and it tweaked my curiosity a bit.

http://devvy.net/pdf/nov09/Michelle_addresses.pdf

I acknowledge that Michelle is NOT POTUS, but she has injected her opinions into the political realm, and so I'm a bit curious about the address list. The list does not verify that a specific address is for THE Michelle Obama, and there are no dates listed (which I would have liked to have seen).

Is this something that would be interesting to investigate further?

[Devvy Kidd's reply to the above email.]

1. "Don't be so critical of Dr. Taitz."

I have been one of her staunch supporters over the past year. If you're referring to my last column, I wasn't critical of Orly, but the screw up in the original service is what caused the case to drag on forever.

That isn't being critical, it is simply a legal fact. The defendants weren't served for months instead of a few days.

2. No. Orly did not file a Quo Warranto in DC. In her letter to Holder on March 1, 2009, she asked Holder to recuse himself, a special prosecutor be appointed and so forth.
[Here is an account of Orly Taitz's attempt to initiate a quo warranto in D.C. on March 1, 2009.
It was basically ignored.]

If there is a QW by her, where is the complaint and when was it submitted to the District Court in Washington, DC? To my knowledge, there is no complaint under a QW filed by Orly's clients.

3. Holder redefines the word corrupt and he won't do anything as I have pointed out in many columns. She doesn't need him. Under the statute, if the AG or US Attorney fail to act, an 'interested person' can then petition the court. The problem is the definition of interested person under Newman. That is the tough part.
[Here is a reference about Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell (1915) in the U.S. Supreme Court.]

It's not about money. Filing the complaint is a couple hundred bux. The complainer might have to post a bond, but a percentage can get it done, maybe $1500. Then we wait and see what the 3-judge panel decides. If writ is granted by the court (I believe that is the proper term), then the government takes over and it goes to trial. Neat, clean and it is the proper legal instrument to use.

4. I am aware of the friction between Leo and Orly. That is for them to work out. I will not get in between them. I try only to bring the facts to people in my columns and encourage them to read, learn and be an activist to stop the destruction of this republic.
[Here is Leo Donofrio's exhaustive, famed, and definitive research on quo warranto (part 1 of 3).]

5. Mario Apuzzo is a fine man, highly intelligent and a great legal advocate. I read this appeal in Kerchner. I've also interviewed Charles Kerchner and he is a passionate and dedicated American.
[Here is Mario Apuzzo's Oct. 29th account of Kerchner v. Obama & Congress.]

The statute (QW) must be tested and Orly has a couple of clients who might - IF the complaint is done right - qualify under Newman. Not military or state legisltors, but Keyes and other candidates. But, like I said, the complaint has to be worded just so or it will get kicked down.

In the meantime, this mess drags on and on and on.
[And nitpicking judges (under coercion) aren't expediting things a bit.
They strain at typographical gnats and swallow an Is|amist camel from a globalist goblet.]

Devvy

[The matador keeps the American people focused on sports, politics, and Iraq, while the NWO takes over.]

Eligibility News from WorldNetDaily; Nov. 7, 2009

Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily

Analysts: Fuzzy Obama draft doc doesn't prove forgery
Postal mark, date, ID number among points questioned
[by WND staff; no author named]


It is possible never before has an American president taken so many pains to hide so much of his background – to the point of hiring lawyers to race around the nation fighting anyone who tries to access his life's records.

But it appears the concerns some doubters have expressed over Obama's Selective Service registration form may not be fully justified.

The charges include a claim the form signed by Obama was created in 1990, not 1980; the postal date stamp had incorrect information on it, and there were a couple of other discrepancies.



The allegations, while significant, may have become lost in light of the federal lawsuits being presented to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging Obama's presidency and other issues that developed.

But several experts say there is little reason for alarm over this document.

One allegation involved the postal date stamp used on Obama's Selective Service form. It's been reported the form has the abbreviation "USPO" for United States Postal Office, even though when Obama's form was completed in 1980 the agency was using the abbreviation "USPS" because of a change to the name "United States Postal Service" several years earlier.

The National Postal Museum directed inquiries to Dick Sine, one of the top postal historians in the country who wrote a stamp column for the New York Times and authored "Stamp Collecting for Dummies." He reported that it is entirely possible that a clerk was using an outdated stamp.

"Personally, my general rule of thumb is, 'If a clerk might have an outdated device still lingering around someplace with research (especially at a smaller PO) sooner or later it is going to show up on some piece of mail it is not supposed to," Sine responded via e-mail.

Another expert contacted agreed with Sine, "I know that there were still some post offices in Texas using older DCDS date stamps with the USPO instead of USPS in the time frame you mentioned. There was no requirement that I am aware of for a postmaster to replace his date stamp, and many did not."

Indeed, the experts confirmed some locations were using "USPO" stamps as late as 2000, 20 years after a Hawaiian post office stamped Obama's registration form with a "USPO" stamp.

This theory of Dick Sine and an unnamed expert has one small problem: this specific Post Office.



Waikiki Station in Honolulu, Hawaii, is hardly some off-the-beaten-path, hole-in-the-wall outpost in the west Texas desert.



2330 Kalakaua Ave. is on the main drag in Waikiki Beach, which, if not as trendy as Malibu, certainly ranks close to it.



The Kalakaua Post Office is less than two blocks from the ocean at Waikiki Beach, and only a block or so from the Sheraton Royal Hawaiian. This is not some cobwebbed, tin-roofed shack on a remote Polynesian atoll that time forgot after V-J Day, Aug. 15, 1945. In 1981, Waikiki Postal Station would have been a showcase for all the latest and shiniest mail technology. Waikiki was no place for an obsolete USPO hand stamp to linger in use for ten years after the U.S. Postal Service conversion.



Take another, closer look at the year on the USPO stamp; it is altered or forged.

• The "19" is missing, which indicates that the first two digits of the year were Photoshopped out.
  
  The "8" is chopped off at the top, unlike any real hand stamp or embosser.
  If the "8" had not been chopped, it would have nearly intruded into the date field, the "29".
  
  Unlike the numbers on a genuine hand stamp, this "8" and this "0" originally were not the same height.
  The "8" had to be cropped to match the height of the "0".
  
  The "8" is upside down (the top circle is larger than the bottom circle).

It appears that an "8" and a "0" from other documents were (sloppily) trimmed and joined to create "08", rotated 180°, and pasted over the year field, overwriting what was originally there, which was probably "1970" or an earlier year. If the font of the old "19" did not match that of the new "80", that may explain why the original "19" was removed.

The registration form does not have a "II" after Barack Obama's name, which would have invalidated it, because it would amount to a registration of his father. For the form to be legal, he had to register with his full legal name, Barack Hussein Obama II. Without the "II", there is confusion about who was registering: the father or the son. But that wouldn't have stopped the registration from being filed, so, never mind.

Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily

Another allegation suggesting the forged document theory is that the Document Locator Number (DLN) at the top right of the registration form – 0897080632 – means the form was produced in 2008 and not in 1980, the year Obama signed it. This is based on the fact the first two digits are "08."

However, Will Ebel, the former director of the Selective Service under Ronald Reagan, and Dick Flahavan, the current associate director of the Selective Service who has served the government since the Reagan years, agreed that the number was not a decider.

"Registration forms created prior to the establishment of the Data Management Center had a DLN configuration different than the current format. The first three characters (089) of the DLN for this form designate that this form was key entered by one of the keying centers of the Internal Revenue Service," they concluded.

The experts reported the "089" number, instead of identifying a date, indicated where the form was keyed in, becoming part of a sequential system only years later.

Another claim is based on the 10 digits of Obama's form, while others have 11.

The government reports at the signing by Obama in 1980, Document Locator Numbers were only 10 digits, an identifier that later was changed by the Selective Service to be 11 to help track them.

"The field was later expanded to 11 digits to accommodate the decade change in 1990 and subsequent decades to avoid duplication of some Document Locator Numbers," Flahavan said.

There are numerous unresolved discrepancies in the Barack Obama Selective Service registration posted at DebbieSchlussel.com.

The most glaring to me is the difference between the Document Locator Number on this registration card


and the DLN above, on file at the Selective Service System’s Data Management System in Chicago.

That inconsistency of the two records indicates that the record on file in the system in Chicago may have been "injected" into the database by someone in the system in Chicago, in cooperation with the Chicago Machine.

If only Quarles Harris could have testified about the Barack Obama passport file tampering...

Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily

Another claim is that the form signed by Obama has a date reference that could indicate it was signed Feb. '90, not Feb. '80, but Flahavan reports while the paper version of Obama's form may be hard to read, the microfilm image of the document clearly shows the date of the form as Feb. '80.

There are other deal-breakers besides the "Feb. '80" printed on the form, which Mr. Flavahan claimed is clearly visible on the microfilm. Mr. Flavahan then failed to reckon with the fact that government records show that the Selective Service Agency canceled its previous order for "Feb. '80" SSS Form 1's, so that no such forms were printed in February of 1980.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAVie ... -3240-001#

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/Downlo ... tID=177647

Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily

The claims that Obama's signature is dated a day after the postal stamp also remains inconclusive for analysts who reviewed it, who pointed out a clerk can forget to change a stamp, or a person can mistake the day when signing.

Flahavan also reports questions about a possible conflict between Obama's signing date in Hawaii and his attendance at Occidental College is not verifiable. He said the records seem to indicate Obama signed on July 30, 1980, four weeks before classes started at Occidental, and the Sept. 4 date on a computer printout simply is when the record was added to the database.

Although the experts WND consulted explained away some of the other flaky-looking items on the card, the main ones are still problematic: the "80" on the "USPO" stamp, the irregular and inconsistent Document Locator Number on the registration card, and the "Feb. '80" on the card when apparently no "Feb. '80" version of SSS Form 1 was printed.

Miss Schlussel's research deserves better than a whitewash. Unless, of course, the Obama Enforcement Team has also gotten to WND, along with Judge David Carter and the other 30 or so judges.

Click here to read the rest of the story at WorldNetDaily.

Click here to read the original story by Debbie Schlussel.

The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues

By Steve Baldwin, Exclusive to Western Center for Journalism

Most Americans don’t realize we have elected a president whom we know very little about.
Pictured: Barack Obama’s Autobiography, Dreams from My Father.

Pictured: Barack Obama’s Autobiography, Dreams from My Father.

Researchers have discovered that Obama’s autobiographical books are little more than PR stunts, as they have little to do with the actual events of his life. The fact is we know less about President Obama than perhaps any other president in American history and much of this is due to actual efforts to hide his record. This should concern all Americans.

A nation-wide network of researchers has sprung up to attempt to fill in the blanks, but at every opportunity Obama’s high-priced lawyers have built walls around various records or simply made them disappear. It is estimated that Obama’s legal team has now spent well over $1.4 million dollars blocking access to documents every American should have access to. The question is why would he spend so much money to do this?

The president who campaigned for a more “open governmentâ€

[quote]
“Scott & Barry, 3rd grade 1969â€

Look in the background of the picture. Does anyone else think it looks like kid's artwork of Christmas trees?