Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

[size=117]Monday, October 5, 2009
TerriK Relates Her Birth Certificate Research; a Picture of Governmental Cynicism & Evasion of Constitution
The following is essentially represented as originally published by TerriK, i.e., by and in Miss Tickly's Question 'O'thority.

OUR WORST NIGHTMARE CONFIRMED:
Obama’s COLB Lacks Legal Veracity.
What Now?
10/04/2009

By MissTickly (aka ‘TerriK’)

On July 27, 2009, Obama was not verified as ‘Constitutionally Qualified to be U.S. President’ by the standards of Hawaii’s Department of Health and Vital Statistics Registrar. Any assertions by Nancy Pelosi or anyone else must be reexamined under the following LIGHT:

THE KEY: ‘FILED by Local Registrar’ vs. ‘ACCEPTED by State Registrar’

We have two statements about two sets of vital records belonging to the President issued from Hawaii. An “original birth certificateâ€

If you want to keep up with the Obama cases, this list seems pretty complete:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22707260/Birt ... er-28-2009

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

If you want to keep up with the Obama cases, this list seems pretty complete:

Complete, yes. Accurate and correct, no.

Total Cases: 64
Birthers win: 0
Constitution wins: 62

I don't think this is a source for anyone except usurpation-deniers.

To my knowledge, the usurper hasn't won any case yet, because no judge has allowed one to be heard on the merits.
So far, the U.S. Constitution has found "no room" in the courts.

Originally Posted by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution

No person except a natural born citizen... shall be eligible to the office of President;"

An accurate heading would be,

Total Cases to date: 64
Constitution wins: 0
Usurpation-deniers win: 0
Weak and spineless judges, intimidated and coerced, wimp out on: 62

Perhaps the goons say, "Your Honor, you will recognize your precious granddaughters in these pictures taken this morning as they walked into their schools. But should your decision today allow the birthers any standing, public credibility, or legal wiggle room, you may never see your little darlings again. Because before the ink is dry on your decision, they will be whisked out of school and out of the country.

"Each and every one will quickly become a slave girl in some country where you will never find her and from which your State Dept. cannot extradite her. When they cease to amuse their slave-owners - for they will be sex slaves - then they will be addicted to heroin and turned out on the streets of New York or Miami or Detroit or Amsterdam until they get sick and die a gruesome death with AIDS.

"I said, 'You may never see your little darlings again.' Because it is just possible that in their excruciating pain and agony, they may call for you to come see them in their throes of death. But it will be too late.'"

I do not believe that an anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-law-and-order oligarchy of two federal executives, sixty Senators, six Supreme Court justices, and the downstream media can stand against the God who is just and the majority of We the People.

But why has NO person in authority willingly put his own life on the line to stand against the DC totalitarians?

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

If you want to keep up with the Obama cases, this list seems pretty complete:

Complete, yes. Accurate and correct, no.

Total Cases: 64
Birthers win: 0
Constitution wins: 62

[size=14]I don't think this is a source for anyone except usurpation-deniers.

An accurate heading would be,
Quote:
Total Cases to date: 64
Constitution wins: 0
Usurpation-deniers win: 0
Weak and spineless judges, intimidated and coerced, wimp out on: 62

We are in complete agreement.

Calls and emails needed here!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-998864.html#998864

I just finished reading Sarah Palin's book last night (good book, BTW), and from it I observed that she is pretty open about the harassing litigation and FOIA actions that almost shut down the State of Alaska and motivated her to resign (or 're-load' as her dad suggests). This 'overwhelm the system' tactic is right from the socialist's playbook, and can be used against them also.

Then tonight (while going through my 600 backed up e-mails), I read the following article from WND and couldn't help but want to cheer Larry Klayman on!

So, I'm wondering if the Executive Branch is liable under FOIA and FACA, does the Congress have a similar restraint, and can their shield of secrecy be destroyed as well? I'd really like to know what Dick, Nancy & Harry have been secretly planning and doing during the last fourteen months. Especially when certain electoral votes were tallied.

And is this possibly a new tactic regarding uncovering eligibility? If so, why not use it?

From the article below, I'm also wondering which side the Secret Service is on in this battle for our constitution and our republic. Somebody needs to interview Larry Klayman again.

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

Obama sued for secret abortion meetings
'In haste to socialize medicine, president violated commitment to transparency'
________________________________________
Posted: December 21, 2009
8:37 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119735

A legal firebrand whose work fighting corruption left both Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney on the defensive today took on Barack Obama, suing the president for secret meetings with Planned Parenthood and other lobbyists on his plans to nationalize health care.

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch USA, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The law requires disclosure of records of meetings between the executive branch and outside industry lobbyists. It also requires access to meetings.

Klayman raised the same issues during the early years of the Clinton administration, contributing to the demise of the health care proposal championed by Hillary Clinton.

The lawsuit charges that in Obama's "haste to socialize medicine in the United States, and increase government control generally," he has "violated his commitment to transparency."

"It is widely known that President Obama and his surrogates have been holding behind closed door meetings with health care industry lobbyists, cutting deals to win passage of his health care legislation," Klayman said.

Klayman contends the president's conduct falls within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which "requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends."

As WND reported, Klayman had returned to Washington, where his efforts to bring light to the Clinton administration made him a high-profile political figure that was parodied on television in the "West Wing" character Harry Klaypool.

Klayman said after his return he was stunned by the level of corruption in the nation's capital, telling CNN's Lou Dobbs, "I've never seen it like this."

Klayman's new case targets "the particulars behind the secret deals the White House has been cutting with private health care concerns, such as the AMA, Pharma, Planned Parenthood, AARP, and other lobbyists seeking to feed at the trough of the government."

"Freedom Watch will not rest until the American people know all the facts about this historic and ill advised health care legislation, which most Americans – be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal – think we cannot afford and do not want as it is written," he said.

Klayman said he hand-delivered just days ago a letter to Obama under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and FACA seeking copies of all minutes and final decision documents.

His letter was accepted at the White House only after he was badgered and belittled by uniformed police officers, he said.

"Egregiously, upon hand delivering the letter to the Secret Service, agents of the president, the undersigned chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch was illegally detained … at the front gate of The White House, while he was on the sidewalk (he had never entered The White House grounds), questioned for over an hour in below freezing temperatures, and berated, harassed and threatened by two of the president's Uniformed Secret Service agents for his public advocacy and he was investigated; that is, these two Uniformed Secret Service agents violated the exercise of First Amendment freedom of speech rights," Klayman said..

"Fortunately, after over an hour of interrogation, false imprisonment, and violation of his civil rights, a very professional female line Secret Service agent appeared and in an appropriate and very respectful and kind manner set the undersigned free," he said.

Klayman's letter said, "It has been widely reported and it is independently known that you and your agents and representatives have been communicating and meeting with, in secret and behind 'closed doors,' lobbyists from the private pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Pharma), Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the American Medical Association (AMA) and other private interests, cutting deals to attempt to assure passage of your proposed health care legislation.

Klayman said the conduct "falls squarely within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act," because "these nontransparent communications and meetings with lobbyists and nongovernmental persons and groups constitute a de facto advisory committee under the letter and intent of the law."

Noting that Obama's plans would involve "one seventh of the nation's GDP," Klayman said he was demanding "on behalf of the American people … that you allow us to participate in any such communications and meetings and that you turn over all documentations, such as minutes and notes of and concerning all meetings and other records, immediately.

"Simply put, the public has the right to know what you promised to private special interests before the proposal legislation becomes law," he said.

The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.

At the Washington Whispers column at U.S. News & World Report, Klayman's earlier work was cited.

"Larry Klayman made a name for himself investigating backroom deals in the Clinton and Bush administrations, like Bubba's Chinagate fundraising scandal and former Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings. Now it's president Obama's turn to face Klayman and his latest public-interest group, Freedom Watch," the column said.

Klayman said his stories of government corruption were not embraced by mainstream publishers. HarperCollins originally had agreed to publish his book – a nonpartisan view of why the current political climate is so unscrupulous – but shelved it because it was considered "too hot to handle," he said.

"I have never engaged in the services of a prostitute, but I have encountered a lot of w-h-o-r-e-s in my career – people and interests that will sell out their nation, if not their family, for money, power and fame," writes Klayman. "Unfortunately, such people exist at the highest level of all three branches of government, as well as in the media."

Piero Rivolta, publisher of New Chapter, an internationally-known businessman and author, said he took on the book because he believes freedom is not only a right but a duty.

"In these trying times, we need to encourage candid and creative thought for the good of the nation," he said. "I believe that 'W-H-O-R-E-S' is the kind of cutting-edge book that will wake people up, provoke important thought and dialogue."

Eric Kampmann, president of Midpoint Trade Books, the national distributor for "W-H-O-R-E-S," said Klayman's expose of corruption comes at just the right time, with confidence in Washington plummeting.

And, on the quo warranto front, this is notice of the first case from Chrysler, Leo Donofrio, and Steve Pidgeon.

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

Chrysler Dealers and attorneys Donofrio and Pidgeon file lawsuit in NYC
By Dianna Cotter
December 29, 3:17 PM
Portland Civil Rights Examiner
http://tinyurl.com/yatteym

This column reported December 5, 2009 that Leo Donofrio Esq. and Steve Pidgeon Esq. would be filing two cases against the Obama Administration and Government. The first a Bankruptcy case in the New York District, and the second to be filed in Washington D.C., a Quo Warranto case directly challenging Barack Obama.

It can now be reported the Bankruptcy case for the Chrysler Dealers who were stripped of their dealerships by the Obama Administration has indeed been filed. Donofrio and Pidgeon have filed a Rule 60 Motion to reconsider on behalf of 21 rejected Chrysler dealers. As was expected, several more dealers have joined in the suit as well. Docket number 6137 was filed today, 12/29/2009 Motion for Relief from Stay to Allow Appeal to Continue filed by Randyl Meigs on behalf of Tommy Manuel Chrysler - Jeep, Inc.. with hearing to be held on 1/21/2010 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 523 (AJG) Responses due by 1/14/2010. The Debtor in this case is the old Chrysler.

In their briefing, Donofrio and Pidgeon assert that the Judge in the original case, the Honorable Robert J. Gonzalez, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Federal Court, Southern District of New York, committed an unintentional fraud by miss interpreting an important witness statement. That witness was Fiat executive, Alfredo Altavilla, who stated that restructuring of the Dealer network needed to occur before the Fiat purchase of Chrysler could move forward. The Honorable Judge Gonzalez interpreted Altavilla’s answer to mean that a restructuring did not occur when indeed it did.

Attorney Donofrio has confirmed a report in the Post and Email as accurately depicting the basis of their case:

Altavilla had testified that the dealers’ agreements need not be rejected prior to the sale be formalized; but Judge Gonzales mistakenly related it thus in his ruling. The Memorandum of the movants explains this in detail, the crucial part of which responds to Judge Gonzales’ footnote, in which he says:

“Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.â€

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

This is the first of two cases that Donofrio and Pidgeon have planned publicly to file. This first filing is certainly indicative that the second does indeed exist, and is forthcoming. The second case will be filed in Washington D.C. in the District court, and this is the Quo Warranto case being brought by the Chrysler Dealerships, which will directly challenge Barack Obama’s qualifications for the office he holds. If that filing proves successful, it will result in the removal of a sitting President.

Assuming that the first case will lead to a settlement with no admission of guilt, will there still be a second case to be filed?

If so, will it be pursued to the fullest extent of the law?

Or, to receive the settlement most advantageous to the plaintiffs in the first case, must every dealer with standing because of damages agree not to bring a Quo Warranto suit?

I don't like the sound of the QW being dependent upon the auto dealers' suit. Certainly someone has to finance a QW, but I don't expect the Donofrio-Pidgeon team to receive any settlement money in time for a QW to affect the 2012 election.

WorldNetDaily maintains this archive of articles about Mr. Obama's Constitutional ineligibility for the office of President.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

May only find suspicious information here. However, I have read that nobody in Obama's classes
at Occidental remembers Obama attending at all. Zilch. Nada. Suspicious. Perhaps perjury.

Now Pastor James David Manning of Atlah Ministries in Harlem, where Columbia Univ. is located,
says that no one in his class at Columbia has any recollection of him. He was not in the yearbook.

We're talking major gaps in his c.v. here. Perhaps Pakistan?