Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

From Charles Kerchner on http://tinyurl.com/y8ty4hm

The False REGISTRATION of Obama's Birth in the Hawaii Records System.

Obama's Birth In Hawaii Was Likely Falsely REGISTERED as Occurring There by Obama's Maternal Grandmother. But Obama Was Probably Physically Born Elsewhere. And Obama's Paternal Step-Grandmother Says Obama was Born in Kenya as Do News Accounts in Kenyan Newspapers.

Listen to this audio segment on how it could have been easily been done in Hawaii in 1961 just to gain the newborn child born out of the country U.S. Citizenship, a highly desirable status. No one ever thought this would be discovered. No one in 1961 ever thought this child would one day run for the Presidency. They only wanted to get Citizenship for the new born child which was born out of the country. And Hawaii's lax registration laws made it easy for anyone to commit birth location registration fraud.

9 minutes video clip at YouTube - Charles Kerchner chats with Bill Cunningham explaining this to Bill on the Bill Cunningham Radio Show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

From Charles Kerchner on http://tinyurl.com/y8ty4hm

The False REGISTRATION of Obama's Birth in the Hawaii Records System.

Obama's Birth In Hawaii Was Likely Falsely REGISTERED as Occurring There by Obama's Maternal Grandmother. But Obama Was Probably Physically Born Elsewhere. And Obama's Paternal Step-Grandmother Says Obama was Born in Kenya as Do News Accounts in Kenyan Newspapers.

Listen to this audio segment on how it could have been easily been done in Hawaii in 1961 just to gain the newborn child born out of the country U.S. Citizenship, a highly desirable status. No one ever thought this would be discovered. No one in 1961 ever thought this child would one day run for the Presidency. They only wanted to get Citizenship for the new born child which was born out of the country. And Hawaii's lax registration laws made it easy for anyone to commit birth location registration fraud.

9 minutes video clip at YouTube - Charles Kerchner chats with Bill Cunningham explaining this to Bill on the Bill Cunningham Radio Show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

I don't recall having read any piece that talks about investigating the actual airline records at a time that Obama would have been flown from Kenya or Indonesia to the U.S. Not the passport record but some sort of official document indicating the purchase of a ticket, the signing of a form prior to and at the airport. This could be used to corroborate an arrival time coinciding with the "Hawaiian" birth record. Am I pessing in the wind??

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

From Charles Kerchner on http://tinyurl.com/y8ty4hm

The False REGISTRATION of Obama's Birth in the Hawaii Records System.

Obama's Birth In Hawaii Was Likely Falsely REGISTERED as Occurring There by Obama's Maternal Grandmother. But Obama Was Probably Physically Born Elsewhere. And Obama's Paternal Step-Grandmother Says Obama was Born in Kenya as Do News Accounts in Kenyan Newspapers.

Listen to this audio segment on how it could have been easily been done in Hawaii in 1961 just to gain the newborn child born out of the country U.S. Citizenship, a highly desirable status. No one ever thought this would be discovered. No one in 1961 ever thought this child would one day run for the Presidency. They only wanted to get Citizenship for the new born child which was born out of the country. And Hawaii's lax registration laws made it easy for anyone to commit birth location registration fraud.

9 minutes video clip at YouTube - Charles Kerchner chats with Bill Cunningham explaining this to Bill on the Bill Cunningham Radio Show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

I don't recall having read any piece that talks about investigating the actual airline records at a time that Obama would have been flown from Kenya or Indonesia to the U.S. Not the passport record but some sort of official document indicating the purchase of a ticket, the signing of a form prior to and at the airport. This could be used to corroborate an arrival time coinciding with the "Hawaiian" birth record. Am I pessing in the wind??

Interesting. Businesses, unlike government agencies, usually have records retention systems to correspond with legal requirements and legal exposure problems. For example, IRS codes may require certain financial records be kept for 3 years, and companies are sometimes better off destroying financial records after that, and thus avoid subsequent legal exposure. Other agencies like the EPA may have quite different record keeping term requirements. If you deal with China, its records requirements are forever, so you have to keep the records associated with your China business forever. In the marketplace, there are businesses that focus on providing legal record retention systems for other companies.

Which country and which agency would require records retention for the travel industry and travel to and from Kenya in 1961, IDK. I'll bet, though, that airline passenger records for 1961 are long gone, and that only government records remain. Still, might be worth a bit of research.

And, as for federal government agency records, FOIA should work if done properly. Many agencies provide records to a requester only after proper legal requests, but they should eventually perform.

States usually have their own version of the federal FOIA and the rules are sometimes different from FOIA and from document access programs found in other states. The huge records access problems experienced recently by Leo with the Hawaii DoH are exaggerated, and would appear to be so difficult largely because of the Chicago influence.

Records research is sometimes a good job for a PI or someone with a lot of time and money on their hands. It often takes tenacity.

America’s two unconstitutional Presidents

Portland Civil Rights Examiner
December 14, 6:53 AM
Dianna Cotter
http://tinyurl.com/yawlpvq

Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880’s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.

President Chester A. Arthur was the son of an Irish immigrant, William Arthur, and Vermonter, Malvina Stone. Arthur would tragically assume the Presidency upon the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 and become the 21st President. President Arthur was successful in keeping the secret of his heritage, and he died shortly after leaving the White House November 18, 1886. He served honorably and well as President of the United States, but was not Constitutionally Qualified for the Office of either Vice President or President, and set a precedent by which it would happen again.

During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?

William Arthur Naturalization

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24080745/Will ... ralization

[i]Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, "Chester Alan Arthur Papersâ€

Mario's new ad is great!

http://tinyurl.com/y8fp3ff

We all need some cheering up these days. Fighting tyranny can be pretty ugly and tiring. In addition to the Internet, my textbooks, and my private readings, I've started to read some foreign newspapers and I came across this Canadian guy named Howard Galganov. Nuff said - on to one of his recent articles.

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

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.
Friday, December 04, 2009
By: Howard Galganov
http://www.galganov.com/editorials/12-4 ... n-america/

Even though it appears as if there will never be joy in Mudville again, just as there was none when Mighty Casey Struck-Out; there will always be hope while there is still the breath of courage left in man and nation.

There is no nation on earth. And there has never been a nation on earth that has ever had or will ever have the courage, determination and resilience of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Even though a Delusional Narcissist occupies the Oval Office, and is leading his nation and the entire world to the edge of the abyss . . .

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.

Even though there is a total disconnect between what comes out of the teleprompter script guiding the words that roll off the lips of HE who believes in his own empty dreams and false promises . . .

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.

Even though the Commander In Chief and Leader of the Free World sells his own country short on the international stage, abandons America’s allies, and tells the Islamic enemy when he will order America’s troops to cut and run . . .

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.

Even though the President of America has led a State takeover of the US Financial Markets, the US Auto Industry, and dictates salaries and positions in private enterprise . . .

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.

Even though Barack Hussein Obama is working at hyper-speed to socialize the American workforce by eliminating the secret ballot, to socialize healthcare by denying choice to the people, and by taking away FREEDOM of Expression by pushing for the Broadcast Fairness Act . . .

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.

Even though darkness is covering the land with real unemployment hovering at, and perhaps beyond 20% . . .

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.

Even though government is growing beyond sustainability, and a nation of entitlement seekers presses for even more at the hand of government . . .

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.

Even though the abhorrent debt and deficit are suffocating the American Dream . . .

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.

Even though the elitists, academics, and wealthy LEFTISTS have abandoned the spirit that gave them the FREEDOM with which they are using to tear down what great men and women of yesteryear built . . .

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA.

And why do I as a Canadian STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA?

Without America, a nation built upon sacrifice with tears, flesh and blood, that has invented the kind of FREEDOM never before known to man, where everyone can believe, what will be left if there is no America for us to believe in?

Even though the Obama White House uses TOO BIG TO FAIL as their mantra to eviscerate the American Dream, I still believe in America.

I still believe in America, because in size of heart, conviction and courage; and in spite of the Troika of Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, AMERICA IS BIGGER IN HEART than are the three of them combined in their self-inflated deluded minds.

I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA, because the American DREAM is something that carries us all.

To hear why I STILL BELIEVE IN AMERICA, listen to my 10-Minute audio editorial by clicking on the Radio Icon at the top of this page [actually this link:]
http://www.galganov.com/includes/player.asp?id=1184

International press media links:
http://www.galganov.com/media-links/

Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov

Finally, Orly gets into the Quo Warranto action. This link is to her two page letter addressed to AG Holder.

http://tinyurl.com/y9jkvyy


Letter to attorney general Eric Holder
Posted on | December 14, 2009 | No Comments

Law Offices of Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Phone 949-683-5411 Fax 949-766-7603
12.14.09.

Via Certified Mail

Attn Mr. Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
USA

Dear Mr. Holder,

On March 1st on behalf of my clients I have submitted to you a request to file Quo Warranto against Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. The request was filed due to following troubling facts:

1. According to a number of licensed investigators National Databases show Mr. Obama using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, which included the numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.

2. Number XXX-XX-4425 that Mr. Obama used for most of his life and is currently using while residing in the White House, is a number assigned to an individual born in 1890, who resided in the state of Connecticut and this Social Security number was issued in the state of Connecticut where Mr. Obama never resided.

3. One of the leading forensic experts in the country Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines has prepared an affidavit, stating that Mr. Obama’s short version Certification of Life Birth cannot be treated as genuine without seeing the original on file in the Health Department in HI.

4. The state of Hawaii since 1911 had in its statutes a provision allowing Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents of get Hawaiian Birth Certificates (currently statute 338-17) and currently statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital.

5. In spite of over 100 law suits filed around the country and 12 Citizen Grand Jury indictments Mr. Obama refused to sign a consent to unseal his original birth certificate currently sealed in the Health Department of the state of Hawaii and all the other vital records.

6. Ms. Chiuomi Fukino, Director of the Health Department of the State of Hawaii has provided a statement that there is a document on file in Hawaii, however she refused to provide any information, as to what document is on file: whether it is a Birth Certificate given to a foreign born child of Hawaiian resident, whether it is an amended Birth certificate, obtained when Mr. Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. She refused to answer any questions as to whether his birth certificate was obtained based on a proper hospital birth certificate or based on a statement of one of his relatives only, which needs to be corroborated.

7. Regardless of place of birth of Mr. Obama, since birth and until now Mr. Obama had a split allegiance. He had British citizenship at birth, Kenyan since age 2 and Indonesian since age 5. Allegiance to other Nations goes as a clear violation of the Natural citizenship clause of the article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.

8. Under the Freedom of Information act 5 US 552, since no response was provided to numerous certified mail letters received by your office nine months ago, I demand a written response or Administrative hearing on the matter within 30 days. On behalf of my clients I demand an answer, as to when the Quo Warranto against Mr. Obama will be filed by the US Attorney General office, or in the alternative if the Attorney General office refuses to file Quo Warranto, I demand an ex-relator status for my clients to proceed with the Quo Warranto action against Mr. Obama in the DC court or the Supreme Court of the United States.

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
Counsel to the plaintiffs-ex relators.
Attachment
Quo Warranto request, Dossie

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Mario's new ad is great!

http://tinyurl.com/y8fp3ff

Originally Posted by Atty. Mario Apuzzo

14 Dec 2009: Obama is a usurper.

Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president.

See this 14 Dec 2009 issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 15.

To be a "natural born Citizen" as is required in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person must be born in the country to parents who both are Citizens of the country when the child was born.

Obama's father was a British Subject when Obama was born in 1961. Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen nor was he even an immigrant to the USA. We are a nation of immigrants but Obama Sr. was not one. And under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and international law, Obama (Jr.) was also born a British Subject and thus is a dual-citizen Citizen to this day, if he was born in Hawaii as he claims.

To date, he has not conclusively proved exactly where he was born to any investigative controlling legal authority. Photoshop'd digital images and pictures of computerized summary data put on the internet proffered by Obama proves nothing. That computer data registration record could have been based on false birth location registration testimony by a family member using a simple mail-in form available in 1961. GIGO - false location of birth registration into a data base yields false data out today on a computer print out.

The original "ribbon copy" long-form birth records with the names and signatures of medical attendants and of witnesses, if any, to the alleged birth in Hawaii must be examined by experts as well as all his other hidden and sealed records of his early life.

If he was born in Kenya as his relatives and news account there claim, then Obama could even be an illegal alien since his mother was not old enough under U.S. laws at that time to convey U.S. citizenship to her child born of a foreign father if the child is born in a foreign country.

Obama had dual allegiance at birth if he was born in Hawaii - British via his father and U.S. via his mother. How can a person born a British Subject and a dual-citizen ever be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the USA with sole allegiance to the USA per the intent of our nation's founders and framers, to Constitutional standards, for the office of the Presidency? He cannot.

For more details on this lawsuit see:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Donofrio has taken to blogging again, relating to the Chrysler dealership situation and its potential attack on eligibility of the POTUS occupant.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... c-14-2009/

[quote]Further Analysis of The SCOTUS Decision For In Re Chrysler dated Dec 14, 2009.


[size=150]The following analysis is in reply to Bankruptcy Expert Lawrence D. Loeb’s analysis of my report yesterday. I respect Mr. Loeb and I have read his Fear and Greed blog with interest during the Chrysler bankruptcy. Please review his report before reading my response below.

_________________________

Dear Mr. Loeb,

First off, let me say that I have found your blog very enlightening on the Chrysler bankruptcy litigation. Thank you for highlighting my analysis. I am not allowing comments at this time, but should you reply at your blog, I will republish the same here.

Yesterday, I was left with the feeling that SCOTUS found a technical manner within which to dispose of the Indiana Pension Fund’s appeal that does in fact seem unfair, but is in fact accurate under a strict technical reading of the law.

I understand your argument and I would agree with it for the most part except that – whether intended by SCOTUS or not – for the appeal which was brought to the 2d Circuit to have been moot at the time it was brought, I believe my interpretation must be correct. Otherwise, how could an appeal brought on June 2d be moot on June 2d?

Perhaps the SCOTUS reliance on Munsingwear indicates that the case became moot after June 9th when SCOTUS decided not to continue the stay. If the case only became moot on June 10th, so be it, and I would stand corrected. However, SCOTUS did not make an affirmative indication of the date the appeal was moot.

Here is the text of yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling:

CERTIORARI — SUMMARY DISPOSITION
09-285
IN POLICE PENSION TRUST, ET AL. V. CHRYSLER LLC, ET AL.
The motion of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950).

Had the SCOTUS simply vacated the 2d Circuit decision, I would certainly agree with your analysis. All these months later, the appeal – since it does not allege a bad faith purchaser – is certainly moot under 363(m). I think we can agree on that.

However, my analysis was premised on the assumption that SCOTUS ordered the 2d Circuit to dismiss the original appeal as being moot retroactive to June 2d. For the sake of argument, let’s tackle my analysis as if the order was retroactive to June 2d.

As to my argument, you stated:

“Mr. Donofrio’s analysis is interesting, but I think it’s a poor (if not slanted) reading of the law. Section 363(m) states:

The reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization under subsection (b) or (c) of this section of a sale or lease of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease under such authorization to an entity that purchased or leased such property in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and such sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.

You then continued your analysis as follows:

But nothing in that Section indicates that ONLY the Bankruptcy Court can issue the stay. It would seem unusual that Congress would intend to give the Bankruptcy Court the right to make its judgement appeal-proof (and doing so would seem to conflict with the role of the Supreme Court in the Constitution). Mr. Donofrio did not cite any cases that supported that theory.

My argument did not allege that a 363 sale is appeal-proof. I made it quite clear that the statute allows for an appeal – notwithstanding a stay – on the issue of whether the purchaser acted in good faith. The Indiana Pension Fund did not allege that Fiat acted in bad faith so they needed an effective stay to appeal.

363(m) is designed to protect the purchaser. If there’s no allegation the purchaser acted in bad faith, there is solid statutory protection. It’s not too far out to imagine that 363(m) was intended to protect the purchaser from having the deal cut out from under him at some later point in time after the sale had been authorized when he might have relied on the sale order to his financial detriment. If the Bankruptcy Court stays their ruling pending appeal, then the purchaser is fairly warned. But if the sale order is not stayed, then 363(m) allows the purchaser to act on his purchase. In cases where assets are melting, this makes perfect sense.

Furthermore, 6006(h) provides for an automatic 14 day stay of a 363 sale. But it also allows the Bankruptcy Judge to provide otherwise. 6006(h) reads as follows:

(h) Stay of order authorizing use, sale, or lease of property.

An order authorizing the use, sale, or lease of property other than cash collateral is stayed until the expiration of 14 days after entry of the order, unless the court orders otherwise.

So, here we see Congress granting the Bankruptcy Court authority to cancel the automatic stay by including, “unless the court orders otherwise“. Congress has therefore allowed the Bankruptcy Judge great breadth and scope over whether the sale should be stayed, and Judge Gonzalez apparently jumped all over that provision.

Now let’s look further at your analysis:

[i][b]“Not only that, but it seems his analysis is based on a poor interpretation of the facts of the case. Specifically, Judge Gonzalez’s Sale Order (Docket 3232 corrections made in Errata Order Docket 3239), dated June 1, 2009, specifically delays the closing of the transaction to allow for an appeal.â€

Posting previously -- which then sparked Loeb's critique -- had been LD's analysis of the day's ruling:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... lser-sale/

[quote]Analysis of December 14, 2009 US Supreme Court Decision Regarding Chrysler Sale.

[size=150]ANALYSIS OF US SUPREME COURT’S RULING in POLICE PENSION TRUST, ET AL. V. CHRYSLER LLC, ET AL by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

While today’s ruling by the US Supreme Court is bad for the Indiana Pension Fund, it does not adversely effect our clients (a group of former Chrysler dealers lead by James Anderer) in any way. Our clients were never part of that appeal and the legal issues raised by the Indiana Pension Fund are vastly different from the issues we will raise. This decision today is somewhat helpful to our case in that by vacating the lower court’s judgment, the US Supreme Court has stripped the prior Court of Appeals ruling of having any precedential effect on our clients.

The US Supreme Court has wisely ordered the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate its judgment below and therefore any precedent that might have been set as to the Indiana Pension Fund’s lack of standing to challenge the use of TARP funds has been set aside by the US Supreme Court. This was a very wise choice by the SCOTUS. Had they simply denied certiorari without vacating the 2d Circuit’s ruling, precedent would have been set. But since that ruling has been vacated, the TARP issue is still very much fair game.

The TARP issue is not related to our pending filing in the Bankruptcy Court, but it will be part of our Quo Warranto action in the DC District Court.

The SCOTUS today gave guidance on this issue by making reference to its prior decision in – United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950), wherein it was held:

The established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system which has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss. [Footnote 2] That was said in Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 299 U. S. 259, 299 U. S. 267, to be “the duty of the appellate courtâ€