Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

I think we're all frustrated sometimes because we tend to feel overwhelmed by the power and financial strength of members of government, but our federal court system might actually help the process of obtaining justice.

For example, it might be interesting to see what would happen if there was one or more law suits filed against the electors and secretaries of state for neglecting and/or violating their duty to uphold the Constitution.

In fact, the lawsuit defendants might be broadened to include members of Congress. Heaven knows they run afoul of the law continuously.

And if someone's civil rights could be shown to have been violated, then there would be provisions for considering a Title 42 lawsuit.

I'm not certain such civil lawsuits are reasonable and proper devices to use, but the idea does deserve some consideration. Individuals can file law suits as well as can attorneys.

Night-all.

I just visited Orly Taitz's blog and someone posting there reported that he/she had attended the electoral college voting in NH state capitol and there might be something irregular about the way the paperwork was processed. (Whoever wrote it might have been in a hurry, but something about the "eligibility certification" of the candidate achieving the votes maybe not being included in what's being mailed to the Office of Federal Register, which will then handoff all 50 states' mail-ins to the Congress.)

There was a suggestion that people were going to inspect/inquire about deficiencies of the EC paperwork to set up easy grounds for challenge in Congress. Whoever wrote from NH must have written in a hurry (or in shorthand) but I couldn't figure out what he was saying, precisely, only that something that ought to be part of the process about the electors themselves swearing an oath or signing paperwork with an oath wasn't quite right. He was referring to what sounded like local statutes so it was an alphanumeric soup of letters and abbreviations and section numbers.

A post from Orly advised that they got the expected initial rejection from Justice Kennedy, who is assigned the geography for appeals taken out of CA, on the Alan Keyes lawsuit. She wrote that they are pretty sure that what's happening in the conferences of Justices is that 3 votes might be favoring a hearing of the matter, just 1 shy of the votes needed to get the cases before the Court for oral argument. They're trying to figure out if the 3rd vote is Roberts or Alito. Their resubmission to a justice of their choice will be to Chief Justice Roberts and if it's denied outright (and rubber stamps the Kennedy rejection) then they'll make an assumption that these conferences have probably found Thomas + Scalia + Alito (???) voting to settle this matter with oral arguments and a decision setting definitional standards, and the others Justices rejecting, in what must be 6-2 (maybe 7-2) votes, but definitely not 5-4 because 4 is enough to require oral argument or actions.

On the "plus" side, it is highly possible that the rejecting is happening because it's going to be a real lipstick-on-a-pig effort to come up with a ruling about Natural Born Citizen that lets Obama pass muster without straining the Constitution and the well-identified history of how NBC was originally defined when it was written into our Constitution, and how it was confirmed as recently as the 1939 decision about Elg (2 parents BOTH citizens and birth inside USA).

Donofrio did yeoman's labor in educating people about the distinctions between "natural born" vs. just plain-vanilla citizenship addressed by the 14th amendment, then 8 U.S.C. 1401 about "citizenship" and "citizenship at birth".

If SCOTUS makes "bad law" in a future ruling, expect them to fudge things and claim that NBC and "citizenship at birth" are somehow the same thing and interchangeable. It would take some gymnastics to do it, it would be bad legal reasoning, but there's a lot of other "bad law" in court rulings so -- not the first time it'd have ever happened.

FreedomFirst,

Good post. Do you have the link to the Orly Taitz blog you reviewed?

Juan

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

FreedomFirst,

Good post. Do you have the link to the Orly Taitz blog you reviewed?

Juan

Blog

http://drorly.blogspot.com/

Article about strategy

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/ligh ... chief.html

The link that has a Reader Comment about N.H. is here

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 4812928566

And here is what it said:

MrTideman said...
Yes, but how many from each state? From what I've observed here in New Hampshire, there are still checks and balances We The People can do: I presume your Electors also took an oath of office (RSA Ch. 92:2 in N.H.) verbally, but did they subscribe to such? In N.H., by Art. 84 of our Constitution BEFORE these "civil officer"s can act they "shall" both "make and subscribe the following declaration". The only signing I did witness at about 10:30 a.m. in the Executive Chamber at the State House in Concord, N.H. on Monday, Dec. 15th was their signing their ballots for P. & V.P. and to be sure, it was filmed, and I did ask the Sec. of State's Paula Penney yesterday, Tue., Dec. 16th, and she said Karen Ladd was not working that day and they have no such oaths on file for her to copy for me! so WHERE be the procedural "due process" of law that is supposed to be guaranteed to us by the 5th + 14th Amendments? The end does NOT justify the means! These votes and in #__ other states canNOT be lawfully counted! To send a copy of this to my four Congressmen. Sen. Judd Gregg, BTW who showed up late by about 2 minutes after this event concluded. Plus BTW my RSA 91-A type-written request of Dec. 3 to see if the RSA Ch. 659:84,I(a) certificates from the governor were Art. 14 complete for all three categories of: to certify to a fact (# of votes), promise (Obama's declaration of candidacy) and QUALIFICATION, was NOT given to me until just AFTER this event, and FAILs in category #3 of course. Plus Elector Ned Helms was the official gate-keeper and door guard, also the one to mail the results of all votes to V.P. Dick Cheney, Pres. of the Senate and others*. I did immediate write (then type**) to him being handed my latest paperwork, but him attempting to give it back to me, but that he threw onto the table for me to retrieve like a dog! It was that he NOT "give" any of these papers TO Federal Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe* at U.S. District Court, until he over there complies with the Constitution that Helms just said he'd honor, and that includes Art.I, Sec. 10, Cl. 17 of the U.S. for "Consent" but that the N.H. Sec. of State has found out, and has certified there being no Title 40 U.S. Code Sec. 255 acceptance of our RSA Ch. 123:1 offer! So to not "give" but "get" FROM them first, because to do otherwise would be a violation of the oath to our rights in the Tenth (10th) Amendment: of yes, there being a delegation of power for "Consent", but if not accepted, then the offer and power still residing in us, the people, and my protest of the Electors mis-spending their allotted funds for these unlawful activities of to buy postage for such. The website of www dot constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba dot htm by Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama has your state statute on this that you can inquire about its fulfillment or not. Me having found the Feds in N.H., MAss., Maine + Florida as in a non-filing mode. Good luck, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com ** P.S. They donated their $fees to the "Red Cross" here, re: the latest ice storm, and had their reception at The Upham-Walker House afterward to where I gave a copy of my type written Art. 8+32 instruction to Helms to President/Elector N.H. Sen. Martha Fuller Clark of Portsmouth to please deal with this oath violation. Yet to hear back from her.

December 17, 2008 6:57 AM

On third reading of it, it's making more sense. It goes to PROOFS needed, in case there were a movement to file suits against electors for violating their oaths by casting electoral ballots for someone who lacked eligibility. (And since electors far and wide reported getting letters from people warning of a problem, they were acting with some "notice" beforehand.) It says that there was an oral oath (and it's on video or film) of the electors but that the state statutes requiring the oath be subscribed (a signature beneath the oath in written form) were disregarded.

Here's an interesting website.

http://www.youtube.com/user/JPK7777777

Plus a cross-reference to that AOL poll showing most think there's "something to it" with the birth certificate issue.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2 ... 0#comments

The Berg case has been distributed for conference on January 9th.

No. 08-570
Title:
Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 200
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For those trying to keep up with all of the cases, I find the following site very helpful

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

The quiet case with an interesting twist or two

[quote]
Thomas v. Hosemann: MS Federal Lawsuit, WND Coverage
December 17th, 2008

Daniel Scott Thomas, an Elector for California and numerous other Plaintiffs in Thomas v. Hosemann had filed suit (article from Gulf Coast News, December 5) in federal court in Mississippi against Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann:

The Mississippi lawsuit was filed November 3, prior to the election, and to date it has received no press coverage within Mississippi and virtually nowhere else either. …

In the Mississippi case titled Thomas et al vs Hosemann the plaintiffs are seeking to require Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann to verify proof of citizenship from all of the presidential candidates. The lawsuit also seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a standard procedure for verifying candidate’s qualifications, including citizenship, which currently does not exist.

According to Jackson attorney James Bell, of Bell and Associates, who is representing Thomas and other plaintiffs, the case is still being considered. A motion to dismiss the lawsuit has been filed by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, a democrat, in behalf of Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, a republican. However, Judge Starrett has yet to act on the motion. …

Bell says GCN is the first media outlet to actually call his office about the Mississippi Obama citizenship case.

GCN contacted Secretary of State Hosemann’s office. A spokesperson had no comment on the case or the status of the lawsuit.

WorldNetDaily covers why this particular suit is so important…

[b] A private investigator has released to WND an affidavit [PDF file] that casts doubt on whether Barack Obama’s family lived at the address listed in the published notice of his birth in 1961.

Jorge Baro was hired by WND to investigate issues related to Obama’s birth amid allegations the Democrat does not meet the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.â€

World Net Daily has over 180,000 signatures on their petition..... Can SOMEONE use these signatures and do a "Class Action Suit"..
180,000 against Obama should get some notice?

You know Grandmsmad, one would think that SOMEONE would sit up and take notice. But honestly, I have no faith in my government to do the right thing. It sickens me that this issue can't be put to rest. Since Obama has refused to put it to rest then I must assume that he truly has something to hide but knows that the other powers that be won't do a #$#% about it! The best thing that we can do is to continue to embarrass these fools.

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

World Net Daily has over 180,000 signatures on their petition..... Can SOMEONE use these signatures and do a "Class Action Suit"..
180,000 against Obama should get some notice?

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

You know Grandmsmad, one would think that SOMEONE would sit up and take notice. But honestly, I have no faith in my government to do the right thing. It sickens me that this issue can't be put to rest. Since Obama has refused to put it to rest then I must assume that he truly has something to hide but knows that the other powers that be won't do a #$#% about it! The best thing that we can do is to continue to embarrass these fools.

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

World Net Daily has over 180,000 signatures on their petition..... Can SOMEONE use these signatures and do a "Class Action Suit"..
180,000 against Obama should get some notice?

It is with a very heavy heart that I say that I have to agree with you TexasBorn.

The United States no longer possesses self-determination as a nation. The U.S. is a servant to her creditors.

If the EU, OPEC, and China were to demand that U.S. power brokers put forward the presidential candidate who is most amenable to globalism, Is|am, and Marxist communism, who would that be?

For those of you who think that the U.S. still controls her own destiny, that is just too much to believe. So let's consider a corollary.

If a politician who was amenable to globalism, Is|am, and Marxist communism ran for POTUS, would the EU, OPEC, and China do everything possible to prepare the way for such a "messiah" and to grease his path? Would they put pressure on the U.S. mass media; the Electors and other electoral officials; the Governors and Secretaries of State; the magistrates, judges, and justices; the U.S. Representatives and Senators; and even the voting machine manufacturers? You betcha.

Would that pressure be kept secret, unaccountable, and out of the view of the public? Ditto.

Might that pressure take the form of economic blackmail, threats to call in trillions of dollars of debt in order to precipitate the collapse of the United States? What do you think?

The strategy of using China's enormous financial and commercial clout as a weapon to crush an enemy is as ancient as the Art of War by Sun Tzu. (However, I haven't found it mentioned there.)

"It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on."

"In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth..."

"Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them."

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

For years, Lou Dobbs has been warning Americans about a looming financial war.

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/ ... id=1854265