Update on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuits

[Zippyjuan]

Ah. It is de Vattel. As I said, the document is French so hardly useful on deternining the citizenship of an American.
What is important is what the US law said in 1961, not what the French thought in 1758.

 

[Pepsi]

Than lets make a letter that would stick.


Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

There are numerous questions as to Obama's citizen status raising suspicion and doubt about Obama constitutional qualification to be president. To settle these questions Mr. Obama must produce proof of citizenship!

Documents that must be produced include;
(a) a certified copy of "vault" (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing his name from Barry Soetoro.

It is reasonable that these documents should be produced considering that his father is Kenyan, his adoptive father is Indonesian, and his grandmother claims to have been present at his birth in Kenya. If he is a natural born citizen then producing these documents should not be any problem.

These allegations will not go away until Mr. Obama produces proof to federal authorities and the public. If he will not do so voluntarily he must be compelled by every means available. You, as an employee of The People, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution.



or just simply

As a concern constituent, about the reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama does in fact does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a "natural-born citizen".I request that during the counting of the Electoral College votes in the US Senate, that you challenged on the grounds that he does not meet the qualifications required to be President, and request that he shows proof of being a "natural-born citizen".


Article II, Section I, of the Constitution 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."

Because Barack Obama's father was not a citizen of the United States, but a Citizen of British controlled Kenya, he does not meet the qualification to become President as a Natural Born Citizen. The people and the future of the United States deserve a little time to look into this matter fully and uncover the truth no matter who the President elect is.

 

[bojo68]

Ah. It is de Vattel. As I said, the document is French so hardly useful on deternining the citizenship of an American.
What is important is what the US law said in 1961, not what the French thought in 1758.

It IS useful in that it provides context as to what the expression meant at the time. It does NOT establish any legal precedent, just a definition of the term, regardless of how much you'd like to use it's foreign origination to dismiss it. That was the way the language was interpreted at the time.
Time for you to dig up some other irrelevant and backward excuse.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps you could share with us some actual evidence he was NOT born in Hawaii. Do you have a genuine Kenyan birth certificate?

 

[bojo68]

Thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps you could share with us some actual evidence he was NOT born in Hawaii. Do you have a genuine Kenyan birth certificate?

I'll do no such thing, because birth cert is irrelevant, and I think you know it. Your just trying to shill for him, by attempting to throw enough BS around to obscure the facts.

 

[Zippyjuan]

If a Kenyan birth certificate- which could prove he was born there and not in the US- is not important, they why care about a Hawaiian birth certificate? A claim has been made he was not born in Hawaii. Demonstrate where else he was born if not Hawaii. Are you unable to live up to the standards you expect others to? You can do better than copping out so easily! I have seen nobody offer to produce any such document. Why not- when it could easliy prove the challenge? I am not obscuring facts but asking for them.

If you want to claim that the Hawaiian birth certificate is false, point us towards a real one. But if a Kenyan one does not matter, then the Hawaiian one must be legit. Unless you have another alternative.

 

[bojo68]

If a Kenyan birth certificate- which could prove he was born there and not in the US- is not important, they why care about a Hawaiian birth certificate? A claim has been made he was not born in Hawaii. Demonstrate where else he was born if not Hawaii. Are you unable to live up to the standards you expect others to? You can do better than copping out so easily! I have seen nobody offer to produce any such document. Why not- when it could easliy prove the challenge? I am not obscuring facts but asking for them.

If you want to claim that the Hawaiian birth certificate is false, point us towards a real one. But if a Kenyan one does not matter, then the Hawaiian one must be legit. Unless you have another alternative.

It doesn't matter where he was born, he's admitted on his own page he's not a natural born citizen, end of story. Birth certs are irrelevant and only used for diversion.

 

[Zippyjuan]

You mean the part where he says he was born in Hawaii?
Born in a US State to a US citizen? How is that not a natural citizen?

 

[Pepsi]

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

He says his father was not an American

 

[Number19]

If a Kenyan birth certificate- which could prove he was born there and not in the US- is not important, they why care about a Hawaiian birth certificate? A claim has been made he was not born in Hawaii. Demonstrate where else he was born if not Hawaii. Are you unable to live up to the standards you expect others to? You can do better than copping out so easily! I have seen nobody offer to produce any such document. Why not- when it could easliy prove the challenge? I am not obscuring facts but asking for them.

If you want to claim that the Hawaiian birth certificate is false, point us towards a real one. But if a Kenyan one does not matter, then the Hawaiian one must be legit. Unless you have another alternative.

Four points : 1) There are alleged statements by Kenyan family members that he was born in Kenya. The place of birth seems to be generally known among the Kenyan population and has become a "shrine/tourist attraction". This is not conclusive and I would say say the strength of validity is less than 50%, but is strong enough to warrant further investigation.

2) Many posts keep referring to a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. No such thing has been produced. For accuracy, the document which has been reproduced ( not the original ) to the public, is a Certification of Live Birth, and this document lacks vital information, particularly the hospital of birth and the certifying physician.

3) It seems as if Certification of Live Births are officially issued to foreign births, provided the parents had resided in Hawaii for at least one year prior to the birth. Again, not conclusively verified. I would like to see an official legal statement that this is indeed true.

4) It seems that the records of medical facilities in Honolulu County have been checked for the year 1961 and there is no record of admittance for the Obama's and no record of baby Barack having been born in such a facility. All statements from American family members, and these have been inconsistent, indicate he was born at a medical facility and not at home. This too is not conclusive, but makes a strong argument for transparency of the original birth certificate showing which facility he was born in.

Now, in light of these controversial allegations, what do you have, to be so insistent he was born in Hawaii? And could you please explain, I'm truly baffled, why there is such strong resistance to having all the "facts" presented in a court of law for public airing?

 

[cheapseats]

Four points : 1) There are alleged statements by Kenyan family members that he was born in Kenya. The place of birth seems to be generally known among the Kenyan population and has become a "shrine/tourist attraction". This is not conclusive and I would say say the strength of validity is less than 50%, but is strong enough to warrant further investigation.

2) Many posts keep referring to a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. No such thing has been produced. For accuracy, the document which has been reproduced ( not the original ) to the public, is a Certification of Live Birth, and this document lacks vital information, particularly the hospital of birth and the certifying physician.

3) It seems as if Certification of Live Births are officially issued to foreign births, provided the parents had resided in Hawaii for at least one year prior to the birth. Again, not conclusively verified. I would like to see an official legal statement that this is indeed true.

4) It seems that the records of medical facilities in Honolulu County have been checked for the year 1961 and there is no record of admittance for the Obama's and no record of baby Barack having been born in such a facility. All statements from American family members, and these have been inconsistent, indicate he was born at a medical facility and not at home. This too is not conclusive, but makes a strong argument for transparency of the original birth certificate showing which facility he was born in.

Now, in light of these controversial allegations, what do you have to be so insistent he was born in Hawaii? And could you please explain, I'm truly baffled, why there is such strong resistance to having all the "facts" presenting in a court of law for public airing?

It would help if we would go ahead and get PISSED.

No tick-y, no laundry -- no proof, no presidency. This isn't complicated. Would anyone permit a surgeon to go ahead and operate, if there was doubt about the photocopied diploma that he doesn't hang on the wall but, rather, assures you is locked in his desk?

 

[Pepsi]

Another letter that could be use, go ahead and add your own ideals or views to make this one better or post your own.



Our republic is facing a troubling challenge to its constitution because of deep concerns that have surfaced about the eligibility of the President elect to be President. We appeal to you to help us focus attention of the nation on this important potential violation of the constitution. In addition, a sitting member of the US Congress is able to influence the process in a positive manner. You are in a unique and historic position.

I am asking that you file a WRITTEN objection to Barack Obama’s certification as the next President of the United States until it has been secured that he is in fact eligible to take office.

Article 2, Section1 of the Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for President:
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

In print and widely read by the Framers and the citizens of this land at the time was a writing by Emmerich de Vattel, (1758) entitled “The Laws of Nations”. In it, he defined natural born citizens:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as:
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” (March 9, 1866)

Despitee popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

From the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

Mr. Obama, under this clear language, is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America. This language requires his father to have been a US citizen at the time of Obama’s birth in 1961. His father was instead a British citizen. Obama was subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain as a result of the British law in 1961 which made him a British subject/citizen by virtue of being born to a male British citizen.. If he was born in Hawaii, as he claims, then he is at best a citizen by virtue of Congressional Acts in effect in 1961, hence a naturalized citizen.

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances.

Ex Parte Milligan (1866), 71 U.S. 2; 18 L. Ed. 281; 1866 U.S. LEXIS 861; 4 Wall.

Thomas M. Cooley, in his great work on "Constitutional Limitations," says:

"A Constitution is not made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time, when the circumstances may have changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. A principal share of the benefit expected from written Constitutions would be lost, if the rules they establish were so flexible as to bend to circumstances, or be modified by public opinion."

"The meaning of the Constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and is not different at any subsequent time."

I urge you to uphold the oath you took when you were chosen by the citizens of this great state to faithfully discharge the duties of your office. Complicity in what can best be described as a fraud on the American people is not a legal option for you.

Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. … Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.


This part could be added I guest, but it might be redundant

As a concern constituent, about the reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama does in fact does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a "natural-born citizen".I request that during the counting of the Electoral College votes in the US Senate, that you challenged on the grounds that he does not meet the qualifications required to be President, and request that he shows proof of being a "natural-born citizen".

 

[libertarian4321]

It doesn't matter where he was born, he's admitted on his own page he's not a natural born citizen, end of story. Birth certs are irrelevant and only used for diversion.

Geez, I could have sworn it was you who was rambling on for months about how the "birth certificate" issue was sooooo important. Now its "irrelevant."

Guess that was before all the "birth certificate" challenges got shot down, lol.

BTW, good thing you didn't take me up on my bet about where these "challenges" were going, you'd have lost all your money...

 

[Pepsi]

A new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases' dismissal: the issue of "standing."

In the case brought by Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg, for example, a federal judge ruled against the lawsuit in deciding Berg lacked the "standing" to sue, arguing that the election of Obama wouldn't cause the plaintiff specific, personal injury.

In Washington state's Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff's attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.

"These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, 'You handle the elections, it's your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],'" Stephen Pidgeon told WND, "and the secretaries of state have said, 'No, it's not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.' But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.

"Here, we have standing by means of statute," Pidgeon continued. "This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office."

Further, Pidgeon explained, "In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it's very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

"He doesn't think he does; we think he does. That's really the issue before the court," Pidgeon said.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84966

 

[Pepsi]

Another letter that could be use


If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.

A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States . That statement has clear meaning.

I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States .

The 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

From the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters,than Congress must use its authority to the objection to Barack Obama’s certification as the next President of the United States until it has been secured that he is in fact eligible to take office. The counting of electoral votes by Congress is January 8, 2009.

There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. If the Supreme Court falls to dispel all doubt that America 's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States, than Congress must.

I am asking that you file a WRITTEN objection to Barack Obama’s certification as the next President of the United States until it has been secured that he is in fact eligible to take office.

 

[nodope0695]

Translation: This has no chance of going anywhere, but WE WANT YOUR MONEY!

SEND CASH NOW!

Wrong....don't be so cynical about this issue. This is real, and you, presumably being a follower of the Liberty Movement, should be concerned about this. Its not so much a question of eligibility, but of ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!!

Have you read it lately? A person MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Obama has not proved this provision, period. If WE THE PEOPLE won't enforce the Constitution, then who will? The governent? Bah, why would they do that if we won't protect it ourselves?

 

[nodope0695]

Another letter that could be use


If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.

A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States . That statement has clear meaning.

I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States .

The 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

From the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters,than Congress must use its authority to the objection to Barack Obama’s certification as the next President of the United States until it has been secured that he is in fact eligible to take office. The counting of electoral votes by Congress is January 8, 2009.

There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. If the Supreme Court falls to dispel all doubt that America 's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States, than Congress must.

I am asking that you file a WRITTEN objection to Barack Obama’s certification as the next President of the United States until it has been secured that he is in fact eligible to take office.

Good info! Sadly, so many here on the fourm don't take this seriously. They have digressed back in to sheepleness, or they never left the flock in the first place. They don't understand the weight of this issue. Its about enforcing the letter of the Law (Constitution), and holding The Messiah Obama to that law. If we let this pass, then precident will be set, and the Constitution will be dead. All hail President Schwartenager.

 

[Pepsi]

What we have, ladies and gentlemen, is another piece of the puzzle coming to light, making the whole eligibility issue for Barack Hussein Obama becoming more and more clear.

What can be confirmed is that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II’s biological father. Please see this PDF, paragraph IV (under the Plains Radio “watermark”), which reads the following:

That one child has been born to said Libellant and Libellee as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.

Of course, this does not say where the presumed President-elect was born. Also, for those who are not familiar with the legaleze, “issue” is the legal term for a child or children (can be inherently construed as singular or plural).

Therefore, what has been confirmed by FactCheck.org (Leo Donofrio’s take here) has now officially been confirmed by these divorce papers. Granted, this is not exactly breaking news, but it puts legal backing behind the fact that Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth was governed by the UK colonial laws of Kenya in 1961 regardless of where Barack Husssein Obama II was geographically born. In fact, even if Barack Hussein Obama II was born on American soil in Hawaii, his nationality status would have still been governed by Britain!

So, to bring this full circle. We now know — via Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines’ forensic work — that the FactCheck.org and related site’s certification of live birth is on record as being officially debunked (I would be open to hear of an opposing expert’s opinion who is willing to substantiate that the certification of live birth, as posted on the Internet, is enough to substantiate Barack Hussein Obama II’s natural born citizenship). Further, you’ll note from this comment that Dr. Polarik further explains how even the pictured certification’s certificate number is questionable.

And today, we now know that UK colonial citizenship had officially been linked to Barack Hussein Obama II via his father, meaning that, officially, Barack Hussein Obama II is an American citizen of some sort, but not a natural born citizen.

InvestigatingObama goes on to summarize Stephen Pidgeon’s commentary (attorney for 13 Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed):

Then, he explains how Hawaii COLB’s are not birth certificates of the kind which are required for fundamental identification. Then, he explains how it is admitted knowledge that Stanley Ann’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack, whose name was changed to Barry Soetoro and who was registered in an Indonesian elementary school as an Indonesian citizen. After this, the discussion gets into the question of whether Barack Obama might be guilty of criminal fraud, if he were born in another nation. …

Now, Pidgeon explains how becoming an Indonesian citizen voids the status of natural born Citizen, requiring naturalization, if one is to then become an American citizen, again. And now, the discussion goes to this peculiar, new working assumption of Ed Hale has that there is a immigrant’s birth certificate for BHO II on file in America

We’re also in for a big week next week, where both Berg v. Obama and Broe v. Reed have big days in court (I’ll be posting a summary of that action for next week).

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2443

 

[Pepsi]

the DC District Court gives the go ahead for the FOIA case

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2465

http://therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/amended_verified_compla int_and_petition_in_re_foia_usdc_.pdf

 

[Pepsi]

Update on the one in Washington

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2565