Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

There are bad people in the world. Some of them are programmers.

REALLY?!?!? Who knew? (Taking a searching look in the mirror...)

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

There are bad people in the world. Some of them are programmers.

REALLY?!?!? Who knew? (Taking a searching look in the mirror...)

I said some - not all.

[quote=[url=http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2322571&page=68]ksdb at Hannity Forums[/url]]

Originally Posted by "Election Watcher":1bxwsxgs

What, exactly, could the President hold up... in his hand... at a debate... that would be proof?

Technically, no document can make Obama eligible for office. He is nullified by not being a natural-born citizen as defined [interpreted] by the Supreme Court. He's not even a 14th amendment citizen as the court defined it. At best, a birth certificate would prove he is a statutory citizen. He needs to do more than hold up a jpg [picture, as Sen. McCain did,] in a debate. Let's let competent legal authorities inspect his alleged birth documents, just to make sure there's no document fraud to add to his Constitutional deficiency to hold office.[/quote:1bxwsxgs]
Speaking hypothetically for the oligarchy of 1500, (or roughly 1500, counting U.S. Congressmen,
U.S. Judges, U.S. Attorneys, state Electors, Governors, Secretaries of State, and Attorneys General),

"Why should we?"

Originally Posted by Election Watcher

But you say no document can make him eligible, and then go on to say, "Let's let competent legal authorities inspect his alleged birth documents, just to make sure there's no document fraud to add to his Constitutional deficiency to hold office."
Why bother?

Faulty logic. No document can make him eligible, but
the presenting of only counterfeit documents proves him undocumented and ineligible.

"Now, don't go jumping to conclusions... I've got it here in a book, somewhere."

From: Leo Donofrio <leo_donofrio...>
Google cache is irrelevant... it will expire in 30 days...

Justia has no control over that, but they have blocked the Wayback Machine, which is important.
________________________________

OK, Mr. Donofrio, I can agree that Google cache is irrelevant. I didn't know it was so short-lived.

Editing out references to Minor v. Happersett throughout supreme.justia.com is a slam dunk... guilty, guilty, guilty.

But I would have a problem in a court of law proving (or assuming) motive and intent in blocking the Wayback Machine. For the robots.txt files, Justia can claim any number of rationales that don't involve the Wayback Machine.

I hope you understand my constructive criticism. I am for you, not against you. But I want to resolve any such objections before they come back to slap you upside the head in court. We all know you're right; even your opponents know your Constitutional arguments are impeccable and indisputable. I just want to pre-debate and eliminate any technicalities that your opponents might use to make your righteous arguments inadmissible.

Then we concentrate on convincing anyone of the Oligarchy of 1500* that they must hear those arguments, and they must rule on the merits.

Sincerely in Christ,

MinutemanCDC_SC

* Or roughly 1500: the President, Vice-President, Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Congresspersons, U.S. Judges, state Electors, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General, and Governors.
Grand Juries are not being allowed, and except for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, local Sheriffs have not yet shown their colors, if they have even shown up.

[size=117]Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Ph 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603

Orly.Taitz... .com

CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU, HAWAII

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF RECORDS

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]PLAINTIFF

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) UNDER UNIFIED INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT
  
  ) STATUTE 92F, STATE OF HAWAII

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]V

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) CIVIL 11-1-1731-08
  
  ) HON. RHONDA NISHIMURA PRESIDING

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]LORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) FILED AUGUST 10, 2011

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) AGENCY APPEAL

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]STATE OF HAWAII,

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) DATE OF HEARING:

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA,

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) NOVEMBER 16, 2011, 8:30 AM

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]THE REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4] ) MOTION TO STAY FINAL ORDER PENDING

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]STATE OF HAWAII

• [list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4][list:2iwi8ba4]) REHEARING

[/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4][/list:u:2iwi8ba4]
On October 12, 2011, this Honorable Court held a hearing in Taitz v Fuddy and Onaka. At the hearing several important issues and questions arose requiring verification with the agency, the Department of Health, and Director of Health Loretta Fuddy. Plaintiff herein is submitting a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION requesting verification and clarification of issues raised at the hearing, a stay of final order pending such verification, and a rehearing with Your Honor. This motion is based on the "Memorandum of Points and Authorities" (below), and oral arguments to be presented during the hearing.

Motion is brought based upon the following issues:

• 1. Defendant misled the court and misrepresented to the court state requirements for the agency appeal.
  
  2. Defendant’s attorney provided to the court rules of evidence and document verification and authentication which cannot be found anywhere in the Rules of Evidence of the State of Hawai’i. It appears that the attorney for the Defendants made up rules of evidence that do not exist, for which she should be sanctioned.
  
  3. Defendant’s attorney might have been acting in her personal interest, not in the interest of the state of Hawai’i, and not in the interest of the people of the state of Hawai’i.
  
  4. Defendant’s attorney submitted by reference a document which she did not produce.
  
  5. Defendant improperly argued a defense of privacy for records which were already released. Privacy cannot be asserted for a document that is in the public domain and no longer private. The document was introduced by reference in legal proceedings, and verification and authentication in lieu of the certified copy is demanded, in light of multiple reports deeming the document in question a computer generated forgery.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES[list]1. During the hearing, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, Plaintiff herein, argued that in the caption of the case, as submitted, the Plaintiff wrote “Agency Appealâ€

[quote="[url=http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/19/exclusive-interviewee-obama-born-in-kenya-birth-records-are-in-the-possession-of-kenyan-prime-minister/]For The Post & Email, Sharon Rondeau[/url]"][b]Exclusive: Interviewee: Obama Born in Kenya,
Birth Records are in the Possession of Kenyan Prime Minister [Raila Odinga]

PERSON WHOSE COMPANY DOES BUSINESS IN KENYA:
“WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATIONâ€

Ed: I have cross-checked the three officials' names on the CPGH Certificate of Birth, Helton Maganga, Dr. James O. W. Ang'awa, and John Kwame Odongo, and I found the names to be valid and reasonable for Coast Province General Hospital.

[quote="[url=http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/10/26/kenyan-newspaper-identifies-heltan-maganga-as-mombasa-hospital-administrator/]For The Post & Email, Sharon Rondeau[/url]"][size=134][b]Kenyan Newspapers Identify “Heltan Magangaâ€

Atty. Mario Apuzzo posted the following at blogs.browardpalmbeach.com on 10/29/11.
[quote="[url=http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/10/marco_rubio_citizen_birther_obama_kenyan.php#comme nt-348505789]Atty. Mario Apuzzo[/url]"][size=117]For the Founders and Framers, for those born after July 4, 1776, “natural born Citizen of the United Statesâ€

[quote="[url=http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/10/marco_rubio_citizen_birther_obama_kenyan.php#comme nt-340992680]At blogs.browardpalmbeach, Joe[/url]"][size=117]"Obama is clearly not an 'original citizen.'
And he's clearly not a naturalized citizen.
Hence, he can only be a 'natural-born citizen.'â€

Writing at Hannity Forums, Roberts_the_man listed and sliced and diced a number of apologist arguments.

Originally Posted by [url=http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=96639861&postcount=750

At forums.hannity.com, Roberts_the_man[/url]]

Originally Posted by badkarma

This really is the best part of this particular argument.
"Look, Obama is not president because the Swiss say so!"

[size=117]Explain EXACTLY how Barry apologists explain Barry is eligible?
<Not the short version that birth in country, etc. nonsense w/o a SC decision...
IOWs, don't take us down non-legal explanation memory lane...
Explain how birth in Hawaii makes him a NBC complete with the standby WKA ruling... > ...

You'll notice that they opine it is by the English (Only the English are not cited correctly in their reach for excuses instead of facts) common law that didn't follow all of the links for their nonsense argument...

For example in this thread :

Here Keppler links what the group think thought process involves regarding the idea posted an image, etc. is supposed to be included in reply to their constituents... You'll notice that the lazy groupthink explanation [from] page 4 onward involves the 14th, etc. ...
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php? ... tcount=571

Here Keppler trots out partial and out of context quotes to try and defend the idea that birth in country is all Barry the non-NBC needs.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php? ... tcount=541

Here DBM tries to trot out the same 14th canard:
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php? ... tcount=523

No, the Swiss along with other nations already knew what natural-born subject/citizen entailed ...

AND actually the reality is that Barry and his apologists argue that he is a NBC based on a badly mangled view of English common law, and [they] base that badly mangled view based on a lazy reading of the WKA ruling ....

Even Justice Gray in the WKA ruling, by what I've shown [and] even by what he cited in that ruling, glaringly suffered from both eyes being lazy and shut, since the English naturalized the children of foreigners, as the Swiss diplomat, acquainted with their legal practices, noted when he stated that :

§ 214. Naturalization. (58 )
..........................
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England,
where the single circumstance of being born in the country
naturalizes the children of a foreigner. - Vattel / Law of Nations
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

You are so deep into spin mode you can't even keep the countries straight...

What a shame!

Vattel's statement regarding the fact that the English naturalized the children of foreigners is backed up by citing Blackstone and Samuel Johnson, where they speak of what the English did in regards to the children of foreigners born in England in this way :

"If one born out of the king’s allegiance, come and dwell in England, his children (If he beget any here) are not aliens, but denizens." – Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), as quoted by Berry, pg. 365

In English common law, the rights of a "denizen" were limited and dwelt between the rights of a natural-born subject and an alien!

“A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: A high and incummicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to his son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue [Children] of a denizen, born before denization cannot inherit [from] him; but his issue [children] born after [his denization], may. A denizen is not excused from paying an alien’s duty, and some other mercantile burdens. And no denizen can be of the privy councill, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown.â€