Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2382
§ 2382. Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/us ... -000-.html

It has long been accepted that Mr. Obama cannot be impeached because he is a usurper, a fraudulent impostor, and not the de jure President. One early proponent of this position, Dr. Edwin Vieira, has recently begun to use the "I" word with reference to Mr. Obama.
[quote="[url=http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/30/is-impeachment-the-proper-course-of-action/]For The Post & Email, Neil Turner[/url]"][size=117]Is Impeachment the Proper Course of Action?

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR SAYS IMPEACHMENT, THEN PROSECUTION

by Neil Turner

(Aug. 30, 2011) — As many of you know, there has been an ongoing discussion and disagreement by various patriots as to whether ‘impeachment’ is a valid action to be brought against the usurper in our White House. The main argument against it is taken from an article written by Dr. Edwin Viera in 2008, BEFORE the usurper was actually ‘certified’ by the Electoral College, and before he was ‘sworn in’ by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
[list]…if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,â€

As corrupt as this Government is, and KNOWING that 99% of them took an Oath to uphold OUR CONSTITUTION...
I have to say with out a doubt they have ALL committed High Crimes of TREASON.
Against the Constitution of The United States of America AND Against the People of The United States of America. The Punishment for High Treason is the Death Penalty... And as a Voting American I Honestly believe this coarse of action MUST BE FOLLOWED.
And maybe the Next group of Represenatives will Understand that this is a Government OF THE PEOPLE! And NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!

PatriotofPast, in what way are the aforementioned 1345 persons complicit in treason against the U.S. Constitution or the United States?

Certainly, they have each and all perjured their oaths to support and defend the Constitution. Obviously, most of them have been and now are obstructing justice regarding Mr. Obama, who overthrew Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5 of the Constitution in an act of sedition. Specifically, by the fraudulent DNC Certificate of Nomination, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Garmond gave aid and comfort to a foreign-born domestic enemy combatant.

Please specify other crimes which could be prosecuted as treason.

Minuteman, the One Treasonous Act that comes to mind is this :
They are ALL Complicit in knowing that Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro has Usurped the Presidency, and Refuse to do anything about it.
How about Voter Fraud, Maybe the 14 Trillion Dollar Deficit could be construed as Treason. Maybe they could explain "Where" the seperation of Powers has disappeared to. If All else fails Minuteman, how about thier TOTAL Disreguard for Our Constitution?

Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States or the Constitution. To sue for treason, it will first be necessary to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Obama is an enemy of the U.S.. You and I both know that he is a OPEC-sponsored communist plant, who is day by day damaging the U.S. more than al Qaeda. But it must first be established, in court, that he is an enemy of the state and/or We the People. Until he is ousted, it will be argued that Mr. Obama is the government.

On Sept. 1, 2011, Rasmussen Reports polled "strong approval" for Mr. Obama at 19% and "strong disapproval" at 43%, resulting in an "approval index" of -24.

But, until Mr. Obama is convicted as an enemy, his supporters' treason is not at issue.

Originally Posted by Publius at Hannity Forums

Cheney did an abbreviated call for objections, in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, given that any objection would have had to be submitted in writing, in advance, signed by a rep and a senator, and he knew there were none.

It's not like anyone could just jump up and object, fercryinoutloud. They'd be ruled out of order if they did.

Publius made that up out of whole cloth. MR. CHENEY NEVER CALLED FOR OBJECTIONS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4 is a recording of the entire 27 minute confirmation hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qSDhJsgmEI is a recording of the closing confirmation statement.

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2009/09...anuary-8-2009/ states the rules for confirmation of the President and Vice President, excerpted from 3 USC § 15.

Originally Posted by 3 USC § 15

Upon such reading of any [that is, 'each', not 'all'] such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

This rule, IMO, sets the time for objection to the electoral vote of an individual state

• either before the confirmation hearing, or
  after the reading of the vote for that state.

At the beginning of the joint session, President of the Senate Dick Cheney stated, "There being no objections," announcing that no objections had been filed, in writing, in advance. Mr. Cheney should have called for objections upon ("after") reading the certificate for each state. If I understand correctly, that is the correct interpretation of the law, "Upon such reading of any [that is, 'each', not 'all'] such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." The time for objection, in writing, was either before the session or after the reading of each certificate.

HOWEVER, Mr. Cheney did NOT call for objections upon the reading of each certificate, no, not upon the reading of any certificate. Mr. Cheney gave no opportunity for objections upon the reading of certificates. Reportedly, at least one Congressman (a Democrat, just below the lower left of the screen) did voice his objection when the certificate for his state was read, whereupon he was surrounded by nearby comrades, hidden from the podium, and not recognized.

The RNC leadership and/or the Republicans in Congress probably determined that Mr. Cheney should refuse to call for objections.

A record of Mr. Cheney reading his official confirmation of the vote is at 2:40 in this YouTube.

Originally Posted by President of the Senate Dick Cheney

This announcement of the state of the vote by the President of the Senate shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected President and Vice President of the United States, each for the term beginning on the 20th day of January, 2009, and shall be entered, together with the list of the votes, upon the Journals of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The pur...

After the interruption by Pelosi-led applause, he completed his sentence. "The purpose of the Joint Session having been concluded..." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4 , beginning at 26:48 ). After he thus confirmed the vote, there could not be any further opportunity for objection.

President of the Senate Dick Cheney was reading the formal script for confirmation of the President and Vice President. When he finished saying, "... and shall be entered, together with the list of the votes, upon the Journals of the Senate and the House of Representatives," Rep. Pelosi knew the confirmation was official. She knew the script, and she knew it included no further call for objections. So her interruption was not to preclude objections, but rather to catch the burst of excitement before it fizzled. She started clapping then to seize a peak moment to applaud the preceding sentence of confirmation, rather than wait until the remainder of the script killed the excitement. I see nothing nefarious about Rep. Pelosi interrupting Mr. Cheney at that particular moment, when it was all over except for a couple of scripted closing sentences. She just wanted to maximize the applause and to make sure that it was longer and louder than that for Rep. McCain and Mrs. Palin.

Now you should have a good understanding of the refusal to call for objections.

P.S. Mr. Cheney is certainly a cooler head than most anyone else in WDC. The Lord certainly blessed us, having him in the seat of power for 7½ years after 9/11. It could just as easily have been V.P. Joe Biden.

Public Policy Polling surveyed 750 South Carolina Republican voters (± 3.6% accuracy).

Republican candidate; % of voters; % believe Barack Obama
was born in the U.S. - yes; no; don't know
Michele Bachmann 7% 6% 8% 9%
. . . . Herman Cain 9% 8% 10% 7%
. . . .Newt Gingrich 7% 5% 6% 12%
. . . .Jon Huntsman 2% 6% 0% 1%
. . . . .Sarah Palin 10% 7% 14% 8%
. . . . . . . Ron Paul 5% 7% 4% 2%
. . . . .Rick Perry 36% 29% 40% 41%
. . . Mitt Romney 13% 19% 10% 9%
. . . Rick Santorum 4% 5% 2% 4%
. .Other/Undecided 7% 8% 6% 7%

Originally Posted by Atty. Leo Donofrio

Nothing cancels out the US Supreme Court except the US Supreme Court or an Amendment. Neither have changed the holding of Minor on the definition of nbc. It stands as law.

IMHO, FWIIW, Chief Justice Waite’s definition of nbC in Minor v. Happersett is only Obiter Dictum. It is not the subject of the case, but only a statement in passing about a related topic. As such, it is not binding, it is not law, it has not been legislated, and it is not being presented now to the court for interpretation or a decision.

Likewise for Justice Gray’s Tory attempt in WKA to return the errant colonies to the control of Mother England. Dicta are just so much legal chit-chat and much ado about nothing, accomplishing little, settling even less, and availing naught.

If I am mistaken, please set me straight. There's a first time for everything.

Originally Posted by Atty. Orly Taitz

[Dr. Terry Lakin's] attorney gave him poor legal advice, stating that Obama’s orders were legal. Lakin relied on poor legal advice of Puckett and can and probably should sue Puckett for legal malpractice.
Puckett wrongly advised him that Obama’s orders were legal. In fact, Obama was never a legitimate commander in chief; he was always a complete fraud and a criminal, and his orders were never legal.

Originally Posted by Former AF JAG

So you are saying that Lakin did not understand the following question:

MC [military judge]: "… Your plea will not be accepted unless you realize that, by your plea, you admit every act or omission, and every element, of the offenses for which you’ve pled guilty, and that you are pleading guilty because you are actually, in fact, guilty. If you do not believe that you are guilty, you should not, for any reason, plead guilty.

"Do you understand what I said so far?"

ACC [accused, i.e., Lakin]: "Yes, Your Honor."

IOW, the court also gave him advice. When told that he should not plead guilty if he did not believe he was guilty, Lakin said he understood that. Then he pled guilty.

[quote="Atty. Orly Taitz"][size=117]You were there and you sat right behind me.
You saw what went on. Puckett gave poor advice to Lakin, telling him that Obama’s orders were lawful.
That brought about his statement, that he disobeyed “lawfulâ€