Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Please read!!!!!!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-151170.html

Meeting with the National Director of the Selective Service William Chatfield

attn Eric Holder-attorney General
Elena Kagan-Solicitor General,
Department of Justice
Robert Mueller-Director of FBI
Mark sullivan-Director of US Secret Service

Today, on 03.25.09. at 10:15 I have met with the National director of the Selective Service William Chatfield in his office at 1515 Wilson Blvd, ste 600 in Arlington VA.
I have presented to Mr. Chatfield a report by the retired Federal Agent Steven Coffman, showing that Barack Obama's Certification for Selective Service has numerous signs of forgery.
Mr. Chatfield provided no explanation to the findings.
I have asked, what is the explanation to the fact that the serial number on the top right of the page, that usually shows the year, showed 08, meaning that it was created in 2008 and under the card an 8 was added before the number to make it look 80, as if it was issued in 1980. According to agent Coffman it was forged to backdate it, to look as if it was issued in 1980. Mr. Chatfield had no explanation.
Similarly I have questioned him about the wrong stamp, wrong form number and wrong dates (see the report in dossier #1).
No answer and no information was provided.
I have left the dossier with Mr. Chatfield and reiterated other troubling issues, such as a list of 100 addresses with numerous social security numbers for Mr. Obama,
I demand immediate investigation of this matter.
Sincerely
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ


Posted by Dr. Orly Taitz at 3/25/2009 12:05 PM | Add Comment

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

I love this woman and I don't even know her.

If there are good guys and bad guys, Orly Taitz is clearly a good guy!

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

I love this woman and I don't even know her.

If there are good guys and bad guys, Orly Taitz is clearly a good guy!

Where was she when I was getting my divorce I fully agree, she is a true patriot and American hero.

dbart727

30 minutes ago The U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice Department today confirmed that documentation challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has arrived and soon will be evaluated.

Confirmation came from Defend Our Freedoms, the foundation through which California attorney Orly Taitz has been working on a number of cases that raise questions over Obama's qualification to be president under the Constitution's demand that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen.

Attorney Taitz has successfully said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge, and therefore were not given a hearing.

Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.

Watch out liberals, socialists, and democraps, the constitution is a testy document and might bite BO in the butt on his way out of office!

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/ ... ndex=72205

BORN IN THE USA?
Federal criminal complaint contends Obama ineligible
Ex-officer alleges prez used 'contrivance, concealment, dissembling and deceit'
Posted: March 25, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An ex-military officer has raised the stakes in the ongoing dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, filing a criminal complaint against the "imposter" with the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."

Story at: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92835

Eventually the truth will be known, I just hope it will not be too late.

BTW, the Fitzpatrick lawsuit is another Orly Taitz case. I hope she has deep pockets and lots of support from her staff, because she will get overloaded very quickly if she is acting on her own.

Immediate REDEPLOYMENT Needed, Please join in!!!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-871856.html#871856

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

The courts apparently think that if you claim you got married in a sworn pleading for divorce, then it must be true.

So, if the allegedly "married couple" lied to the parents (hers) about the elopement, or if the whole gang of them had lied about the existence of a marriage in the birth announcement, then those parents might have paid for a lawyer to file for her to get a divorce around the time she'd taken up with Soetoro.

[size=14]Stanley Ann D. Obama didn't just lie to her parents.

She and her parents didn't just lie to the two newspapers.

Stanley Ann D. Obama subscribed and swore to the fact that she and Barack Obama II married at Wailuku, Maui, on Feb. 2, 1961. The Hawaii Circuit Judge acted upon that uncontested statement and incorporated it into the divorce decree as the event which was precedent to the divorce.

All parties involved are dead. The court's ruling stands, and has stood for 45 years. I can't imagine any way to get a review of that ruling, much less overturn it; can you? Whether their marriage was fictional or factual in the sight of God, in the sight of the judiciary, it is an established fact. And it is the judiciary with which we have to do here. Conjecture all you like, but that case is closed.

Allow me to post it again, for those who didn't see it on the previous page.

I simply pointed out that the system in place in Hawaii for divorces appears to have allowed uncontested claims to be inserted in pleadings without substantiating proofs, such as a certified copy of a marriage license. In the realm of "case is closed" .......

http://www.truthinjustice.org/

Advances in DNA forensic methods have led to "Innocence Projects" which released people who spent time in jail on false charges -- largely the result of unreliable eyewitness identifications -- which could be conclusively disproven from crime scene "preserved evidence" containing the REAL perp's DNA which did not turn out to match the DNA of the wrongfully accused and convicted. Some of these "innocents" who were thrown in jail wrongfully had been confined for decades.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/ips.htm

Is a conviction a FACT purely because a court or a jury says so, and it stays on the books for decades? Or is there such a thing as "objective truth" which can defy what a court says?

You asked: The court's ruling stands, and has stood for 45 years. I can't imagine any way to get a review of that ruling, much less overturn it; can you?

My answer: Better evidence, duly authenticated as bona fide, might find that kind of outcome. In the area of "what if" ...

What if the Clerk charged with records retention for Maui were to issue an Affidavit stating that:
#1 There have been no fires or other incidents which would cause destruction of records properly submitted and retained in their archives system since 1960;
#2 He has made diligent search through all archived records of marriage licenses showing not only the date of Feb. 2, 1961 but dates extending 4 months prior and 6 months after;
#3 He can find NO RECORD of a marriage license on file for anyone going by the names "Stanley Ann Dunham" and "Barack Hussein Obama"
#4 In addition to search for paper record of a license, he has searched serialized microfiche materials which are tamper-resistant (or tamper-evident if a substitute microfiche has been inserted) due to method of chronological entry (based on submission dates and/or assignments of numbers to licenses) on one long strip of fiche materials, and these also find no evidence of a validly licensed marriage.

What if the successor firm to the old HENSHAW, CONROY, & HAMILTON -- which is now Rush Moore LLP ...

http://www.rmhawaii.com/about_firm.html

were to be served with a Court order to dig up its archived files of the divorce and (miracle of miracles) it turned out that they had maintained those files in verifiably undisturbed long-term storage in some kind of super-secure record-holding company, like an Iron Mountain Inc. With a court order advising that no "attorney-client confidentiality" will be accorded to the "dead parties" the firm might turn over the entire file and what if the notes taken by the attorney handling the case (George L. T. Kerr who went on to found the firm of Chun, Kerr, Dodd, Beaman & Wong in 1970, as noted by that firm's In Memoriam page when Kerr died ... http://www.ckdbw.com/?page_id=127)

.... clearly showed, in handwriting indisputably proven by 3 or 4 experts to have been Kerr's own along with testing for suitably "aged" ink, that there had been some kind of an "admission" by the client Stanley Ann Obama. What might that admission be? That she wasn't sure what kind of a minister performed the ceremony? That she made the story up but was worried about whether Obama might come after her or her parents' assets asserting 'common law' marriage? That she found out he was married to Kezia and might be a bigamist but didn't want her child to be labeled as a "bastard"? One doesn't know what such a file might have contained, nor if it might still exist somewhere at one of the law firms. But if it were to be found in existence, and ordered to be turned over for examination, might there be "better objective truths" -- a/k/a "facts" -- which were found to have been concealed long ago?

If it turns out there is a marriage license, or the order stands uncontested because nothing is brought forward to challenge it (so it remains "best fact") AND it turns out that attention goes to LEGAL ISSUES, then the next thing that will get a lot of study is the law in place in 1961 in Hawaii and how it might have granted recognition to "foreign marriages" undertaken under the colonial laws of Kenya.

http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_weblo ... states_hl/

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurren ... 2-0001.htm

PART I. REQUISITES, PROCEDURES

Note: Part heading added by L 1984, c 79, §1.

§572-1 Requisites of valid marriage contract. In order to make valid the marriage contract, which shall be only between a man and a woman, it shall be necessary that:

(1) The respective parties do not stand in relation to each other of ancestor and descendant of any degree whatsoever, brother and sister of the half as well as to the whole blood, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, whether the relationship is the result of the issue of parents married or not married to each other;

(2) Each of the parties at the time of contracting the marriage is at least sixteen years of age; provided that with the written approval of the family court of the circuit within which the minor resides, it shall be lawful for a person under the age of sixteen years, but in no event under the age of fifteen years, to marry, subject to section 572-2;

(3) The man does not at the time have any lawful wife living and that the woman does not at the time have any lawful husband living;

(4) Consent of neither party to the marriage has been obtained by force, duress, or fraud;

(5) Neither of the parties is a person afflicted with any loathsome disease concealed from, and unknown to, the other party;

(6) The man and woman to be married in the State shall have duly obtained a license for that purpose from the agent appointed to grant marriage licenses; and

(7) The marriage ceremony be performed in the State by a person or society with a valid license to solemnize marriages and the man and the woman to be married and the person performing the marriage ceremony be all physically present at the same place and time for the marriage ceremony. [L 1872, c 23, §1; am L 1903, c 28, §1; am L 1907, c 42, §1; am L 1913, c 8, §1; RL 1925, §2943; RL 1935, §4630; am L 1935, c 185, §1; am L 1937, c 59, §1; am L 1939, c 122, §1; RL 1945, §12351; am L 1949, c 53, §29; am L 1953, c 79, §1; RL 1955, §323-1; am L 1965, c 232, §1; HRS §572-1; am L 1969, c 152, §1; am L 1970, c 9, §1; am L 1972, c 182, §1 and c 192, pt of §1; am L 1978, c 74, §1; am L 1981, c 202, §1; am L 1984, c 119, §1; am L 1994, c 217, §3; am L 1997, c 52, §5]

Attorney General Opinions
Effect of adoption. Parties who by adoption become uncle and niece not disqualified to intermarry. Att. Gen. Op. 62-49.

Common-law marriages invalid. Att. Gen. Op. 73-5.

If requirements of valid marriage met, validity not affected by absence of filed marriage certificate. Att. Gen. Op. 84-10.

It appears that the Attorney General opinion about common law marriages being invalid if attempted to be undertaken in Hawaii was not issued until 1973. It relied on a statute passed sometime before that date.

See also:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/hawaii/lgb.rights.laws

MARRIAGE ESTABLISHED BY REPUTATION PRESUMED VALID. --Where the marriage is established by reputation, it will be presumed, in the absence of any showing that would repel such conclusions, that the parties were legally competent to marry, and that they first secured a license and complied with all other requirements necessary to make valid the marriage contract. In re Estate of
Kalamau, 26 Haw. 81 (1921).

IN A SUIT FOR THE ANNULMENT OF A MARRIAGE, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE MARRIAGE IS VALID and the burden is upon the libelant to prove the incompetency of the libelee to enter into the marriage. Okubo v. Sato, 29 Haw. 716 (1927).

EVIDENCE OF MARRIAGE. --Celebration of a marriage is generally proved by the record thereof or by the witnesses present. The latter is considered stronger evidence, but it is not necessary to produce the record or the celebrant, unless perhaps the other evidence is purely circumstantial. Republic of Haw. v. Kuhia,
10 Haw. 440 (1896).

CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE RECORD AS EVIDENCE OF VALID MARRIAGE. --Where the certificate of the marriage record was admissible, it was not necessary to produce the license to marry nor to prove that the agent who granted it had the requisite authority. Republic of Haw. v. Waipa, 10 Haw. 442 (1896) (decided
under prior law).

THE SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED THE THEORY OF MATRIMONIAL ACTION OF AN EQUITABLE NATURE. Aehegma v. Aehegma, 8 Haw. App. 215, 797 P.2d 74 (1990).

COHABITATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH AGREEMENT FOR SUPPORT. --Cohabitation, no matter for how long, does not by itself prove the existence of an express agreement for post-cohabitation rehabilitative support or equitable division of separate property acquired or improved during cohabitation. Aehegma v. Aehegma, 8 Haw.
App. 215, 797 P.2d 74 (1990).

OR IMPLIED CONTRACT. --Cohabitation, no matter for how long, does not by itself prove the existence of a contract implied in fact. Aehegma v. Aehegma, 8 Haw. App. 215, 797 P.2d 74 (1990).


OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

ABSENCE OF FILED MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE, if the requirements of this section have been met. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 84-10 (1984).

COMMON LAW MARRIAGES INVALID. --Because a marriage license is a prerequisite to a valid marriage under paragraph (7), common law marriages are invalid in Hawaii. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-5 (1973).

COUPLE THAT DIVORCED BUT LATER LIVED AS MARRIED WERE NOT MARRIED. --Since common-law marriages contracted in Hawaii are void under the state statutes, where a husband and wife were divorced in Hawaii but later reconciled and lived together ostensibly as husband and wife until the husband died, the woman was not the wife of the man under Hawaiian law, was not a "wife" under HawaiianHomes Commission Act @ 209(1), and was not a qualified successor to the man's Hawaiian home lands homestead. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-5 (1973).

Airtight cases are rare. Clients, because they may tend to focus on a desired outcome, sometimes can't wrap their minds around the "what if's" in any case where the lawyer doesn't already have all the answers to the questions being raised.

Absent the original birth certificate and the marriage license for Dunham/Obama, there just aren't conclusive "root document" answers in this mystery-wrapped-in-an-enigma.