Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Obama is also a lawyer, and the second meeting I was thinking of was the one where he sat next to Roberts in the restaurant (I don't remember the event name).

I'm also not certain Taitz asked anything but a procedural question, something I would think she would be permitted to do.

Am I wrong?

I didn't hear about the restaurant encounter. What was that about?

The restaurant meeting was possibly in a hotel conference hall or some other public place, and was discussed on 'The View' or on Oprah's show. I didn't see the show, so my memory of the re-told events is not clear. Maybe someone can fill in the blanks for me.

I do, however, remember the Devvy Kidd article in NewsWithViews on January 15, (http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd428.htm) in which she wrote:

===========

"At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pay a protocol visit to the Supreme Court of the United States Wednesday afternoon, the office says....The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present."

I called the media number at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The giddy operator confirmed they expected Obama at any minute!

To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A 'ceremonial' meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it's flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices have already held two 'Distribution for Conferences' on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama's citizenship ineligibility. They just turned away one of Phil Berg's cases a few days ago; that one is still in the Third Circuit. Tomorrow is the fourth case; another from Phil Berg.

On Wednesday, Roberts meets with the man at the heart of that case in private. Two days later, he sits down to discuss the case with the other justices after having a closed door meeting with the defendant! There is still the Lightfoot v Bowen case to be heard in conference, January 23, 2009. Again, Chief Justice Roberts will sit in that private meeting to discuss whether the case should go to oral arguments.

Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances? Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.

and more...

===========

I realize you don't have an apparent issue with the Obama/Roberts meeting, but I remember I did have an issue. To me, the meeting reflected more slimy Chicago politics in action, and because the meeting was behind closed doors and therefore secret, red flags went up all over the place. I guess I just don't trust Obama in any manner at all, and thinking back, I can't remember a time when he didn't come across to me as a fraudster. So, I cut him no slack.

In summary, I believe the meeting with John Roberts was held for the wrong reasons and that Obama was doing his usual 'hide the truth' dance.

Nothing good for America came out of the meeting.

IMHO.

BTW, your other comments were very helpful.

In an ideal world, neither side would be in contact with Supreme Court Justices while a case is pending. But the reality is that lawyers go to social functions all the time and members of the bench are often at those, as well. Oftentimes, they are the speakers. Or they will show up at state bar conventions. And the judges often have cases pending that the lawyers are handling. So then it boils down to questions like

Was the setting public?
Was the setting private?
Were others around who could vouch for what was said?
Did any topic arise which involved pending litigation?

The invitation was extended by the Chief Justice to Obama, it wasn't the other way around. I don't know when it was extended, so it's hard to know what the status of the cases were at the relevant time. Obama might have been well advised to decline it, if the timing was soon after the election when the conference on the first case might not have been held yet.

It looks like Obama wasn't happy with the remark Biden made about Chief Justice Roberts. Here's the video.

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/ ... stice.html

We've got a gaffemaster as the heir-to-the-office and you have to wonder how the ignoramus ever got elected to anything.

Interesting bill has been introduced.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM119_0 ... smith.html

It could just as easily be made effective immediately, and require an incumbent president to submit the documents, assuming that that incumbent signed it into law.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Interesting bill has been introduced.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM119_0 ... smith.html

It could just as easily be made effective immediately, and require an incumbent president to submit the documents, assuming that that incumbent signed it into law.

I think there is a concerted effort to rupture and destroy the Constitution by TBD forces, probably located in Washington. This last presidential election, neither candidate was a natural born citizen, and both clearly understood the subject matter very clearly. Now we have the Republicans talking about Bobby Jindal as a potential candidate for 2012. He's good, but he's NOT a natural born citizen and is unqualified to be president.

Piyush Jindal was born on June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Punjabi Indian Agrawal immigrants Amar (अमर) and Raj (राज) Jindal (जिनà¥

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

It's OK, but I disagree with his (Leo Donofrio) latest argument that Quo Warranto is the only right way to proceed to remove a sitting POTUS when there's no impeachment in the offing.

Interesting comment. I thought he was first interested in the quo warranto in an effort to help the military. As you may have noticed, I probed a bit on the standing argument and he didn't want to look at it.

Maybe he is too narrowly focused. I am just glad he is there and appears to have great staying power. Everything counts, and he's one more person in the army of justice.

And I can't envision an army of Illinois state legislators storming Washington looking for Obama's hide.

Donofrio now is apparently censoring posts that raise uncomfortable potential legal outcomes (a finding of Obama's eligibility) stemming from "facts" that would show birth in Hawaii and "unwed mother" ...

As I noted in an earlier post in this thread, if there were to be a finding of "no marriage" then I think the British Nationality Act of 1948 would not apply to Obama because it conferred citizenship only to legitimate children (at birth) or "legitimated" children (whose parents married after their birth). The things that bothered me at the time I looked through that BNA of '48 were the facts that the same reporter who was able to locate the divorce papers long before Ed Hale got them was also unable to obtain a copy of a 1961 marriage license from Maui, and that Obama's wife Michelle was reported to have said in a campaign visit speech last summer that Stanley Ann Dunham was "very single" when Barack Jr. was born.

Someone who did some detailed research and posted on another blog/forum reported that Leo had censored the same "kind" of information from appearing in his Natural Born blog. It's a disservice to a readership if one develops tunnel vision and doesn't let "weak" parts of a case see the light of day. People need to know that no case is airtight, with all the unknown facts still out there. Here's the link, and a cut and paste of that guy's research:

http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2442810129/show/992361

[quote][size=150]I suspect Obama is Kenya born and NOT our legal President - but there's a big problem:

If Obama’s parents can be proved to be LEGALLY UNMARRIED that would dramatically affect deliberations in eligibility and Quo Warranto hearings. The problem is there are TWO ways to prove Obama's parents were NEVER legally married. As a result, on current evidence (repeat CURRENT evidence), no court will ever find Obama ineligible to be President.

British citizenship under the UK Nationality Act 1948 transmitted automatically ONLY TO CHILDREN OF A LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE:

1 Obama’s father was already married in Kenya before he came to America. The marriage was according to native custom. In British Kenya in 1961 “customary marriageâ€

FreedomFirst,

Very interesting discussion and points. While doing research on Hawaiian marriage laws, did you note whether or not federal recognition of a couple as being married would be considered valid in Hawaii, as is another state's recognition of the married couple?

It is my understanding that one or more federal agencies (e.g. IRS) will recognize a couple as being married if they hold themselves out as being married (e.g. filing a joint tax return, signing into a motel as Mr. & Mrs., etc.). This might be an acknowledgment and recognition of Common Law Marriages by the feds.

Question for the inquiring mind: did Dunham or Obama Sr. ever file any tax returns, joint or otherwise? Did they ever hold themselves out as being married, regardless of whether or not any nation's laws recognized the married state?

Side note: I think because of the divorce decree, they must have at some point held themselves out as being married. Does this make Obama Sr. a bigamist?

Obama Jr's birth certificate as it exists in Hawaii may be the only reasonable explanation of what really happened during day one of Obama Jr's life.

We also need to learn what nation Obama considered his own nationality while he was in college. Unfortunately, we don't have access to those records either. Or his DoS travel records, which have apparently been sanitized by one or more interested parties.

I hope we learn the good lesson from this adventure into interesting times not to do this kind of thing again.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

FreedomFirst,

Very interesting discussion and points. While doing research on Hawaiian marriage laws, did you note whether or not federal recognition of a couple as being married would be considered valid in Hawaii, as is another state's recognition of the married couple?

It is my understanding that one or more federal agencies (e.g. IRS) will recognize a couple as being married if they hold themselves out as being married (e.g. filing a joint tax return, signing into a motel as Mr. & Mrs., etc.). This might be an acknowledgment and recognition of Common Law Marriages by the feds.

Good question. Didn't do the research. It's actually got two parts.

#1 How might the federal government regard a "tribal marriage" lacking any paperwork but entered into by a foreigner from Kenya who comes to the U.S. on a student visa? He didn't bring the wife along. He might have had to get special "confirmation paperwork" from Kenya showing her as a spouse if he had brought her into the U.S. to stay together while he was in school. There's a general discussion that seems to point to the Feds wanting paperwork under an older 1860 statute as well as newer statutes and guidelines. It's a minefield of complexity, it seems, with the State Dept. mostly concerned about what American citizens are doing abroad (e.g., getting married or divorced) rather than what a foreign citizen might have done abroad in his home country before showing up here with a visa.

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/marria ... e_641.html

#2 How does the federal government regard common law marriages undertaken domestically? General impression: the feds would probably defer to the states as far as whether there was a marriage under state law. What might be a good litmus test is whether the IRS is currently accepting joint returns from partners in "gay marriages" from the states where they've been recognized by high court decisions; or, whether they accepted such returns from partners during the time that California was pre-Proposition 8. (2007 tax year returns.)

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Question for the inquiring mind: did Dunham or Obama Sr. ever file any tax returns, joint or otherwise? Did they ever hold themselves out as being married, regardless of whether or not any nation's laws recognized the married state?

Side note: I think because of the divorce decree, they must have at some point held themselves out as being married. Does this make Obama Sr. a bigamist?

She was a teenage college student who isn't mentioned as having a job although her Social Security Number is traced to State of Washington, as the place of issuance. Back in those days, SSN's weren't issued shortly after birth like they are now; they usually weren't obtained until the teenage years when kids got drivers' licenses and summer jobs. His student visa wouldn't have found him eligible to hold down a job in the U.S. so if he got any jobs at all, to supplement his living allowance, it's likely he was paid in cash and never got a W-2. No Social Security # for him in order to do withholdings, so no need for him to file a tax return at all. In fact, he might have gotten in trouble with the law if he did file a tax return showing he'd been working.

Side note: They told people they had gotten married. The current Representative from Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, was in college with Obama Sr. and counted him among his friends. He said in an interview that he'd been told, by them, that they had eloped to Maui. (For all we know, it might have been a made-up story to everybody, even Ann's parents.) The birth announcement reported a "Mr. and Mrs." and nobody is challenging that newspaper page as forged. If Obama Sr. was a bigamist then it would make the marriage a nullity, and instead of a divorce, an annulment would have been the proper way to go. Except that the lack of paperwork ("tribal marriage") would have created a problem in Hawaii because the lawsuit for annulment would need hearsay evidence.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Obama Jr's birth certificate as it exists in Hawaii may be the only reasonable explanation of what really happened during day one of Obama Jr's life.

We also need to learn what nation Obama considered his own nationality while he was in college. Unfortunately, we don't have access to those records either. Or his DoS travel records, which have apparently been sanitized by one or more interested parties.

I hope we learn the good lesson from this adventure into interesting times not to do this kind of thing again.

You're right about the importance of that original certificate. Nothing is really settled unless it's produced. Donofrio says the Certification might be enough if Hawaii stands behind it. I disagree. He's putting all his eggs into the one basket of what FactCheck wrote about the British law "governing" Obama's status.

You're right about the "good lesson" too. The fact that state legislatures are finding bills introduced, to require submission of birth certificates when candidates file their nominating petitions, and that there's a federal bill introduced too, amending the federal elections statutes, suggests that people are waking up to a problem area.

Meanwhile, from the Seattle newspapers:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/642 ... idaho.html

Chief Justice John Roberts discusses LincolnBy NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

MOSCOW, Idaho -- Chief Justice John Roberts discussed the legal prowess of President Lincoln during a university lecture Friday and fended off an audience member who advanced the widely discredited theory that Barack Obama was not legally qualified to be president.

Roberts said Lincoln had such a finely developed sense of justice as a lawyer that he had trouble taking cases he did not believe in, and could not do his best work on such cases. This trait was well known among his fellow lawyers, Roberts said.

"He could not ignore his internal compass," said Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush to lead the Supreme Court and took office in 2005.

Roberts also noted that Lincoln lost his only case before the nation's highest court, a complicated real estate dispute.

Roberts spoke before a packed house of some 1,200 people at the annual Bellwood Memorial Lecture Series at the University of Idaho.

At one point during the audience question period, Orly Taitz, a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., said she had documents proving that President Obama was not born in the United States and thus could not be president. While audience members laughed, she said she had half a million signatures of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the matter.

Roberts cut her off by saying that if she had documents with her, she should give them to security officers. He also said he could not discuss the issue.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., threw out a lawsuit questioning Obama's citizenship, branding the case a waste of the court's time.

In responses to other questions, Roberts noted that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg considered former Chief Justice William Rehnquist the best boss she ever had.

"I haven't heard she has revised that assessment," Roberts said, drawing laughter.

Roberts also said judicial nominees should not be expected to provide detailed ideological information during the confirmation process.

Roberts said the process of appointing new justices has become polarized and politicized as senators try to pin down how a nominee might vote on particular issues.

He said that kind of questioning was inappropriate, as judges are expected to be impartial in hearing the cases that come before them.

This is the 100th anniversary of the founding of the University of Idaho School of Law, and Roberts focused his speech on Lincoln, whose 200th birthday is being celebrated this year.

Roberts noted that Lincoln loomed large in Idaho history, creating the territory of Idaho, appointing the first territorial governor, and remaining deeply interested in the development of the territory even as the Civil War raged.

Roberts said Lincoln spent 23 years as a lawyer, despite no law school education, and became one of the best in Illinois.

Law school students should develop the qualities that made Lincoln a great lawyer, which include being diligent, developing their public speaking skills, paying attention to details, discouraging litigation, being a peacemaker among parties and honest at all times, Roberts said.

He also noted that Lincoln wanted to be more than a lawyer, and sought public service.

"This College of Law will realize its full measure of greatness when the school and its graduates take advantage of opportunities to do more," Roberts said.

A more local paper chose to ignore the Q&A where Orly spoke.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/m ... n-lincoln/


[quote]March 14, 2009 in City
Roberts leans on Lincoln
Top justice tells law students president offered sound lessons
Jim Camden
Staff writer

MOSCOW, Idaho – John Roberts isn’t too concerned that more people can name the judges on “American Idolâ€

BORN IN THE USA?

Chief justice publicly accepts WND's eligibility petition

Attorney Orly Taitz talks to Roberts, who agrees to read Obama-birth docs

Posted: March 14, 2009
4:45 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution's "natural-born citizen" clause.

According to Orly Taitz, the attorney who confronted Chief Justice John Roberts at a lecture at the University of Idaho, the judge promised before the gathered crowd that he would, indeed, read and review the briefs and petition.

"I addressed him in front of 800 people in the audience," Taitz told WND, "including university officials, the president of the Idaho State Bar and the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and in front of all them, [Roberts] promised to read my papers."

Roberts was lecturing on Abraham Lincoln to approximately 1,200 attendees of the annual Bellwood Memorial Lecture Series at the Moscow, Idaho, university. Roberts has been chief justice of the Supreme Court since his nomination by President George W. Bush and subsequent confirmation in 2005.

Earlier in the week, Taitz confronted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told her the issue of Obama's eligibility, which has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times but has yet to be given a single hearing, still lacked the votes of the required four justices in conference before it would be officially heard.

Taitz said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency."

The legal phrase Quo Warranto essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

"Tell me what to do, what can I do?" Taitz reports asking Scalia. "Those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate?"

She says Scalia responded, "Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others."

In Idaho, Taitz obtained the promise of one of the others, the chief justice, that he would read through the eligibility challenge, including the petition brought by WND readers.

As WND reported, Taitz is submitting a motion to the Supreme Court for re-hearing of Lightfoot v. Bowen, a case she is working on through her foundation Defend Our Freedoms, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

Orly Taitz

She asserts docketing information about her case "was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after the inauguration and two days before [the case was to be heard]."

At the lecture in Idaho, Taitz grabbed the attention of Justice Roberts by boldly addressing her allegation that a clerk had buried the case.

Taitz told WND that the forum rules required that those questioning Roberts announce their relationship to the University of Idaho and refrain from talking about cases currently before or likely to appear before the court.

"I said, 'Justice Roberts, my name is Orly Taitz. I'm an attorney from California, and I got up at 3 o'clock in the middle of the night, flew and drove thousands of miles just to ask you a question. So please give me some leeway,'" Taitz told WND. "My question is, do you know there is illegal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?"

According to Taitz, the room was stunned silent as she continued, "I have presented my case to you, and you personally agreed to hear this case in conference. But your clerk refused to forward a supplemental brief to you. He has hidden this brief from you. He refused to put it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket one day after the Inauguration, two days before my case was to be heard.

"Outraged citizens and members of the media and state representatives are calling the Supreme Court, demanding to have the case reentered on the docket," Taitz told Roberts.

Then she held up the WND petition and continued, "Moreover, here are the names of U.S. citizens who signed this petition and who sent individual letters to individual justices, including you, Justice Roberts, all of them demanding the same thing – that you hear my case in regards to Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility for presidency."

According to Taitz, Roberts approached the microphone and said, "I see you have papers. I promise you I will read all your papers, I will review them. Please give them to my Secret Service and I will review all of them."

Shortly thereafter, Taitz told WND, a Secret Service agent identified by his badge as Gilbert Shaw accepted two suitcases of documents and pledged to deliver them to Roberts.

Taitz reports the documents included four major sections:

A motion for reconsideration of Lightfoot v. Bowen with all its supplemental briefs.

The Quo Warranto Easterling et al v. Obama et al case.

The WND petition, consisting of 3,300 pages of names – over 325,000 in all – of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the Obama eligibility case.

A copy of a 164-page dossier sent to Attorney General Eric Holder detailing suspected criminal activity surrounding Obama and his supporters, also available on the Defend Our Freedoms website.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, some suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case was dismissed by Judge Michael P. Kenny.

Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=91763

Related - World Net Daily's Petition:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-865084.html#865084

Dr. Orly Taitz is one courageous woman. Unbelievable.