Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Here is the link to the above article by Kevin Lehman:

http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpres ... rack-obama’s-identity-eligibility-to-be-president-of-the-usa-share-this/

Originally Posted by Kevin Lehman

Therefore, theoretically, natural-born citizenship, in its purest, ineradicable form, could be measured by three metrics:
1) Biological conception by two U.S. citizen parents
2) Birth in a geographic region under the protection of the U.S. Constitution
3) Maintenance of that citizenship status without any unnatural interruption of parentage, legal process or administrative procedure.

http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpres ... rack-obama’s-identity-eligibility-to-be-president-of-the-usa-share-this/

[size=117]
This is at variance with the widely accepted definition of natural born Citizen:

• "a citizen
  born in the country
  of parents who are citizens."

This is almost the same as the definition used by Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875). Waite lifted it from The Law of Nations (175, by Emmerich de Vattel. De Vattel did not coin or create that definition; rather, he codified in his law text the accepted international law of that day. “The natives, or natural-born citizens [indigenes], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.â€

GOOD NEWS! JUDGE LAMBERTH CHANGED HIS MIND AND ALLOWED ATTY. ORLY TAITZ'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HIS SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF TAITZ V. ASTRUE, THE BARACK OBAMA SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER FRAUD CASE.[quote="[url=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=24260]Atty. Orly Taitz[/url]"][size=117]Thank God. Judge Lamberth ordered to file my opposition with 10 exhibits. Only one exhibit, Affidavit of Susan Daniels was filed under seal, but it will be still reviewed and considered in the final decision by Judge Lamberth.

Activity in Case 1:11-cv-00​402-RCL TAITZ v. ASTRUE Memorandum in Opposition

show details 9:57 AM (45 minutes ago)

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 7/28/2011 at 12:57 PM and filed on 7/27/2011
Case Name: TAITZ v. ASTRUE
Case Number:1:11-cv-00402-RCL
Filer:ORLY TAITZ
Document Number:31
Docket Text:
Memorandum in opposition to re [21] MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ORLY TAITZ. “Let this be filed, except for Exhibit 9, which shall be filed under seal only since it still contains improper redactions.â€

Originally Posted by At Hannity Forums, get er done

The judge may "agree" to "reconsider" the case for appearances only. As the old saying goes, "Don't confuse the law with justice." Nevertheless, it is good to see this case in the news in the Washington Post.

[size=117]
I didn't expect to see anything resembling the truth about Taitz v. Astrue
in the Washington Post, which printed more or less what one would expect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...rfI_story.html

The writer seized the opportunity to include a derogatory quote,[list]“After making the somewhat hysterical claim . . . that there may be
‘an employee in this court who is intentionally sabotaging’ her,â€

Originally Posted by At Hannity Forums, ksdb

A[n Obot's] smiley is not a rebuttal.

Obviously, ksdb is not taking the funny math of Obot logic into account. . .

or the Wonderland logic of the Red Queen's pronouncements.

Either way, it depends . . .

it all depends . . .

upon on which side of the padded door one is.

Originally Posted by An Obot to whom I shall not award notoriety by naming

O'Rly remains delusional

If speaking truth to power, using government documents, is proof of insanity,
then truly that is proof that the inmates are running the asylum.

Trip makes a good case against Mr. Obama's ongoing crime of FRAUD.
[quote="[url=http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=93444111&postcount=41399]At Hannity Forums, Trip[/url]"][size=117]Well "the Truth" is that, by known terms, Obama is forever unqualified to hold the office of President, even as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court each and every time it has addressed the issue.

Furthermore the Truth is of whatever "law" you want to cite, [b]Obama has an obligation to fully demonstrate his qualification for office, but he has chosen not to do so, which is nothing short of FRAUD.[list]“Silence can only be equated with fraud
where there is a legal or moral duty to speak
or where an inquiry left unanswered
would be intentionally misleading.â€

When we get a favorable decision, or the pseudo-President is ousted another way, we will need a solid and persuasive defense against the de facto officer doctrine, as we attempt to undo the usurper's attack upon America (and Israel).
__________________________________________________ _

Ryder v. U.S.: the de facto officer doctrine

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-431.ZO.html [EDITED down to relevant parts]

Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995).

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Coast Guard, challenges his conviction by a court martial. His conviction was affirmed first by the Coast Guard Court of Military Review, and then by the United States Court of Military Appeals. The latter court agreed with petitioner that the two [of the three] civilian judges who served on the Court of Military Review had not been appointed in accordance with the dictates of the Appointments Clause, U. S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2,

Originally Posted by the U.S. Constitution, Art. ii, § 2, ¶ 2

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

but nonetheless held that the actions of those judges were valid de facto. We hold that the judges' actions were not valid de facto. . .

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto [officer] doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984). . .

In Ball v. United States, 140 U.S. 118 (1891), a Circuit Judge assigned a District Judge... Ball later moved in arrest of judgment challenging the sentence imposed upon him by the assigned judge after the death of the resident judge, but this Court held that the assigned judge "was judge de facto if not de jure, and his acts as such are not open to collateral attack." Id., at 128-129.

Similarly, in McDowell v. United States, 159 U.S. 596 (1895), a Circuit Judge assigned a Judge... [McDowell] later challenged the validity of his conviction because of a claimed error in the assigned judge's designation. This Court decided that the assigned judge was a "judge de facto," and that "his actions as such, so far as they affect third persons, are not open to question." Id., at 601. . . In a later case, Ex parte Ward, 173 U.S. 452 (1899), petitioner sought an original writ of habeas corpus to challenge the authority of the District Judge who had sentenced him on the grounds that the appointment of the judge during a Senate recess was improper. This Court held that "the title of a person acting with color of authority, even if he be not a good officer in point of law, cannot be collaterally attacked." Id., at 456.

In the case before us, petitioner challenged the composition of the Coast Guard Court of Military Review while his case was pending before that court on direct review. Unlike the defendants in Ball, McDowell, and Ward, petitioner raised his objection to the judges' titles before those very judges and prior to their action on his case. And his claim is based on the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution--a claim that there has been a "trespass upon the executive power of appointment," McDowell, supra, at 598, rather than a misapplication of a statute providing for the assignment of already appointed judges to serve in other districts. . .

We think that one who makes a timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case is entitled to a decision on the merits of the question and whatever relief may be appropriate if a violation indeed occurred. Any other rule would create a disincentive to raise Appointments Clause challenges with respect to questionable judicial appointments.

Qualified immunity specially protects public officials from the specter of damages liability for judgment calls made in a legally uncertain environment. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982) ("[O]ur decisions consistently have held that government officials are entitled to some form of immunity from suits for damages"). Providing relief to a claimant raising an Appointments Clause challenge does not subject public officials to personal damages that represent a "potentially disabling threa[t] of liability," but only invalidates actions taken pursuant to defective title. The qualified immunity doctrine need not be extended to protect public officials from such attacks.

Similarly, the practice of denying criminal defendants an exclusionary remedy from Fourth Amendment violations when those errors occur despite the good faith of the Government actors, United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), does not require the affirmance of petitioner's conviction in this case. . .

The Government finally suggests that the Court of Military Appeals applied something akin to a harmless error doctrine in affirming petitioner's conviction, refusing to redress the violation because petitioner suffered no adverse consequences from the composition of the Court. . .

Examining the difference in function and authority between the Coast Guard Court of Military Review, and the Court of Military Appeals, it is quite clear that the former had broader discretion to review claims of error, revise factual determinations, and revise sentences than did the latter. It simply cannot be said, therefore, that review by the properly constituted Court of Military Appeals gave petitioner all the possibility for relief that review by a properly constituted Coast Guard Court of Military Appeals would have given him. We therefore hold that the Court of Military Appeals erred in according de facto validity to the actions of the civilian judges of the Coast Guard Court of Military Review. Petitioner is entitled to a hearing before a properly appointed panel of that court. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

[size=117]The following law only applies within New Jersey,
but it explains the de facto officer doctrine well.
__________________________________________

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-officer/

De Facto Officer Law [for New Jersey] & Legal Definition

De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

The following is [New Jersey] case law defining the term De Facto Officer.

“An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:

"First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be;

"Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like;

"Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;

"Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be suchâ€

In time for someone's birthday tomorrow, sung to a familiar tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6q5t0pqpFc

Don't you love it?!!!!!!

(Dated 5/27/11, but not posted here before)

MissTickly points out that the purported seal on the yellow COLB in the FactCheck photographs is debossed (lowered), not embossed (raised). This makes it invalid according to Hawaii Public Health Regulations, Chapter 8b, 2.4 B. (1) (b).

Originally Posted by Hawaii Public Health Regulations

(b) Form of certification. Standard certified copies shall contain an appropriate certification statement over the signature of the registrar having custody of the record and be impressed with the raised seal of the issuing office.

Do you see a ‘raised’ seal in this photo?
(Click on the images to enlarge; click on the links to view the huge originals.)



http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/ ... cate_8.jpg

The readable side of the seal should be raised on the back of the paper, like so:



http://www.wnd.com/images/110512hawaiibirthcertseal.JPG

But it isn't. Quite the opposite, in fact.



http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/ ... cate_1.jpg

This by itself invalidates the photographic images posted at FactCheck.

MissTickly's analysis:
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/about ... cial-seal/