Skip to comments.Live Updates From Obama Eligibility Hearing At The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena
Posted on 05/02/2011 12:20:12 PM PDT by rxsid
click here to read article
And not assure that someday he may become President but rather to secure him a place on the government dole.
We are just watching the movie “Wag The Dog” all over again!!!
The Diversion Continues.
Even if Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama had been birthed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House he is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
You need to go to Leo Donofrio’s site and see what Ms. Tickly has discovered, Wow. She should have been there to testify!!!
“Mark my words” “Mark my words”???
Thank you and check your freepmail!
Deliberately not *PINGING* the aforementioned troll as an overt gesture of disrespect.
Well, well, well!!! Very suspect. Actually, more than suspect, damning!
Check your freepmail. It’ll cheer you right up if you haven’t seen it yet.
If Obama is not a legitimate President, does that quench his Sovereign Immunity from suit for ordering the death of bin Laden?
Can Al Qaeda sue him, and thence the US, for not exercising proper diligence in keeping only legitimate claimants to the Presidency?
Good grief. I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did.
Did he kick and scream while being escorted, Cajun likes it when they kick and scream, that way the *Viking Kitties* can use excessive force.
I would guess that he may have already come back in via a side door - he seemed like a retread and buddies with someone here who copies and pastes nonsense in 0h0m0’s support non-stop.
brrrski isn’t a troll, he is probley a computer generated hack....
That's a much less likely possibility than the "birth certificate form" presented by the White House being created electronically out of multiple images in the last few weeks. The late Dr. Sinclair's signature could have been obtained from an old document in possession of his widow - an ardent Democrat with connections even now to the Hawaii DOH - and used as a piece of the forged BC.
Well, that was interesting.
When addressing standing the Lady Judge said, I think of an ordinary citizen's ability to gain it, "Unfortunately, that's not the law." I'm not sure standing is actually law. I think it's more procedure and/or precedent which isn't quite the same thing. Perhaps someone who knows more about this than I would chime in, and whether it makes a difference in these cases. (I.e., how bound is the judge to follow the rules of standing?)
As to the question of before, during, or after, and what remedies can be sought, I wish someone would have used horse racing as an analogy. Every race has conditions of eligibility. (The simplest example is that the Derby is for three year-old horses only.) Beyond the conditions for a single race, there are rules that govern all races in a particular jurisdiction: the horse, owner, trainer and jockey all have to be registered, the horse may not be given certain medications for a set period of time before the race, etc.
Sometimes a horse is entered who isn't eligible; and the stewards reject the entry. Sometimes a horse fails a pre-race drug test and is scratched. And then the race is run, some horse wins, the winning bettors are paid, and the purse is distributed to the top finishers in the race. Maybe the winning owner gets a trophy or a julep cup. After that the winner comes under increased scrutiny for additional drugs or drugs that take a longer time to detect. If this winner is found, post hoc, to not have been eligible, he is declared to have been ineligible. Not everything can be set right after the fact, but the things that can be set right are. There is no way to recover the money from the winning bettors so they don't even try. But they do redistribute the purse money and the owner of the disgraced horse has to give back the julep cup if he got one. Sometimes the trainer or the jockey (who might have been found to have illegally stimulated the horse with an electrical device) are suspended or banned from racing entirely.
Orly Taitz has her rough edges, and I'll admit that I am predisposed to like her, but I thought her argument was the best. The judges, who asked pretty good questions I thought, had few questions for her.
And the government guy could have just presented the "birth certificate" Obama released last week. But for some reason he did not.
I'm not sure if it would have been considered within the rules to present physical evidence at this hearing before the 9th Circuit. The appeal was supposed to be "on the law" as opposed to "on the facts."
And if the Court were to accept the purported "birth certificate" as evidence, the government ran the risk of that document providing an argument to the plaintiffs, or to other plaintiffs in other cases, that Obama was ineligible for POTUS because of his father's lack of citizenship.
Plain as the ugly nose on my face. :)
“Sometimes a horse is entered who isn’t eligible; and the stewards reject the entry. Sometimes a horse fails a pre-race drug test and is scratched. And then the race is run, some horse wins, the winning bettors are paid, and the purse is distributed to the top finishers in the race. Maybe the winning owner gets a trophy or a julep cup. After that the winner comes under increased scrutiny for additional drugs or drugs that take a longer time to detect. If this winner is found, post hoc, to not have been eligible, he is declared to have been ineligible. Not everything can be set right after the fact, but the things that can be set right are. There is no way to recover the money from the winning bettors so they don’t even try. But they do redistribute the purse money and the owner of the disgraced horse has to give back the julep cup if he got one. Sometimes the trainer or the jockey (who might have been found to have illegally stimulated the horse with an electrical device) are suspended or banned from racing entirely.”
I like this analogy of yours that reminds us all how we are all subject to the ‘rules’.
Although the "new Hawaiian birth certificate," is most likely a forgery, I don't think the procedural rules for this appellate hearing would allow them to submit it in evidence. Then too, if it was admitted in evidence here, it could be attacked in the future by the plaintiffs in this case or in other cases on the grounds that Obama's father's alien status at the time of Obama's birth, as inferred from the "birth certificate" and other documents, demonstrates that Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible to be POTUS.
Obama’s lawyers will not present any documents in court that cannot be verified as legit by the opposition.
In all these years of litigation, never once has that infamous Certification of Live Birth, the COLB, been presented in court. It was too risky.
I believe BHO’s lawyers this time around will continue on the same or similiar course; no BC or COLB to be presented.
I’m sure you are correct.
“Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied!”
Orly Taitz should be congratulated for her courage to mention Lt. Col. Lakin in her argument.
Is standing actually "law"? Well, I don't think you'll find it in any federal statutes, but lawyers would say that it is part of "case law," because it is discussed in court decisions.
In every news article about any hearing TAX PAID attorneys have been present. These TAX PAID attorneys are not BHO attorneys. They are employees of the American citizen.
Why should one dime of tax money be spent on such a simple matter?
Fact: It is simple to prove one’s natural born citizenship. It is simple to do so in a clear, unambiguous, and prompt manner.
Fact: Unanointed Americans routinely release these clear, certifiable, and unambiguous documents routinely for many reasons.
Fact: Obama has NEVER released clear, certifiable, and unambiguous documents that would prove his natural born citizenship.
Let me say right up front I agree, that Obama IS using lawyers paid for by the taxpayers, meaning people like you and me. He would never spend his own fortune when he can defraud the government. So, how to prove it?
I always get asked this, and so the problem with your statements about the lawyers being all tax paid attorneys, is “where is your proof”?
Do we have to wait until he is out of office, and pray that all records haven’t been torched?
If you have a source, please share.
Actually, the document the White House released last week is titled "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth," not "Certification." Regardless, it was most likely phony, and Obama's lawyers would have been foolish to even mention it.
Lack of "Standing" is a much more convenient way for them to argue for the lower court's decision. For the judiciary, lack of "standing" is a convenient game to play as well, because it insulates Obama from any court decision on the constitutional eligibilty issue on its merits.
It is easy for you to do your own research. Check any article in any of these cases where Obama attorneys are interviewed and they will identify all or some of them as government attorneys.
The most compelling single reason why Obama's legal defense team in this case should not be paid by the American taxpayer is very simple:
The complaint does not concern any action undertaken by Obama in his official capacity as president (nor as US senator, for that matter). The only issues in the complaint arise from Obama's personal history, and the case commenced before he assumed the presidency.
It's standard and legal for government attorneys to defend officials or agencies accused in civil complaints with particular actions taken in their capacity as public servants. But representing a current official on charges arising from facts entirely predating his term in in office is outside the scope of the Justice Department's statutory power.
From Dr. Taitz's site:
"I need to explain a couple of points, which people might not know or understand. I filed this case as the only attorney on inauguration day. Gary Kreep joined only towards the end. I represent Ambassador Alan Keyes, 10 state representatives and 30 members of the military. Kreep represents only 2 clients. After Carter ordered the case dismissed Kreep filed his appeal right away. I filed a motion for reconsideration in order to preserve several issues on appeal. After Carter denied my motion for reconsideration, I filed my appeal. Kreep had only one issue -standing of his 2 clients, members of American independent party: Drake and Robinson, and the judges were saying that they do not have any particular standing. their standing does not differ from standing of others.
I have 40 clients with different standing and more hearings and motions and decisions, as I was an attorney on the case the whole time. Unfotunately a dirty trick was played in relation to time to speak during the oral argument.
Additionally, it was a complete outrage, where a concerted effort was made by this Perkins Coie attorney and the court to attack me personally and try to elevate Kreep. You would see that for the longest time only I and Mario were continuing to push Vattels definition of Natural born. Kreep and Berg were fighting us. If arguendo the birth certificate would be valid, than it would end the whole issue of eligibility. If you read all of Kreeps and Bergs arguments until now, they argued, that Natural born is one born in the country. I was arguing that it is a combination of birth and citizenship of parents. Also, none of the attorneys dared to touch the issue of social secuity fraud.
Of great concern is the fact that Kreep and Berg harassed me with frivolous law suits, which cost me a lot of time and money. If these people are really on our side, why are they harassing me with law suits?
I filed a motion with the court of Appeals asking for the maximum time, which is 20 minutes for the defendant and 20 for the plaintiffs. The court of appeals granted maximum time and stated that we need to divide it equally between 2 cases and the case with the lower numerical number goes first. Kreeps appeal started with 09-, my started with 10-, so he was first. He was supposed to talk for 10 minutes and stop and let me speak for 10 minutes. Instead Kreep did something totally creepy: he spoke for 18 minute and said that he wants the remaining 2 minutes for rebuttal. He clearly saw that the clock was set for 20 minutes, which was supposed to be divided. Luckily, as I stepped to the lectern, I noticed that the clock showed 2 minutes left and argued and demanded my full 10 minutes, but what Kreep did, was a really dirty trick. Yet another one.
Complete posting, here: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=21319
This quote and my remarks have been on my home page for quite some time...maybe a year. IIRC, he began using the DoJ and TAX PAID attorneys about the time he hit the $1 million mark in expenditures.
As those figures climbed to $2 million and above I repeatedly made comments about the fact he was usuing the DoJ, but was promtly ignored so I put the info on my page. Somewhere I'm sure I have the source of that info, if it hasn't been scrubbed from the web.
"I was a constitutional law professor, [LIAR!]
which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,"
"I believe in an attorney general who is actually the people's lawyer, not the president's lawyer."
BS aka BO, March 30, 2007
[My how things change once one inhabits the Peoples House with access to the peoples wallets. Suddenly it has become perfectly acceptable to use the attorney general and the entire department of justice as your own personal law team. Commie hypocrite! The fact that you ran for office without providing documentation proving you were constitutionally eligible proves you are no respecter of the Constitution.]
What is Orly’s web site address?
Thanks for the ping. Sounds like Kreep is a creep. And to make the case that “born in the country” is a NBC. What’s their game?
Thanks.....she has a pretty interesting site.
She just send off a letter to the doctor who signed for Zero’s recent “certificate”.
DR. ORLY TAITZ ESQ
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY, STE 100
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688
May 4, 2011
Via certified mail
Dr. Alvin T. Onaka
State Registrar and Chief of the Office of Health Status Monitoring of the Hawaii Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street.
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
REQUEST OF ACCESS TO RECORDS UNDER HAWAII UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT OF 1975
Dear Mr. Onaka,
For the last three years there were multiple requests made for release of Mr. Barack Hussein Obamas long form birth certificate.
In December of 2010 a highly Decorated U.S. military officer, bronze star recipient, Lt. Col Terry Lakin, was imprisoned, after he questioned, whether President Obama is legitimate for office in light of the fact, that he does not have a valid long form birth certificate. Lakin stated, that if he as an officer is required to show his birth certificate, so should the Commander-in-Chief. When LTC, Dr. Lakin stated that he would redeploy only after he could see a valid long form birth certificate of Obama, he was court -martialed, stripped of his military pension after 17 years of service and imprisoned. At the time, Mr. Obama ignored all requests from hundreds of citizens, refused to show his long form birth certificate and LTC Lakin was sent to rot in Fort Leavenworth prison.
Recently a multibillionaire, Donald Trump, raised this issue and quickly rose in polls as a leading presidential candidate for the 2012 election. At the same time 9th Circuit court of Appeals allowed my case Keyes, Barnett et al v Obama to be presented at oral argument, which usually a sign that the court sees merit in the appeal. In this case, I, as an attorney for plaintiffs, demanded release of Mr. Obamas long form birth certificate, among a number of other documents. In an apparent preemptive strike, just two working days before the court hearing, Mr. Obama released, what he claimed to be a true and correct copy of his birth certificate. (Exhibit 1)
Analysis of what Mr. Obama released to the public, shows that it cannot possibly be a true and correct copy of the 1961 typewritten birth certificate, that Mr. Obama claims to have. While there some 70 areas in this computer image, indicative of the fact, that it is not a true and correct copy of the original birth certificate, most visible are following areas and easily demonstrated by comparing Mr. Obamas computer image with a birth certificate given to one, Susan Nordyke, born only a few hours after Mr. Obama, in the same hospital (Exhibit 2).
1. Original birth certificate was issued on white paper. Nordyke birth certificate is indeed on white paper, which is turning yellow due to aging process. Obamas birth certificate is on green safety paper, which was not used at the time.
2. Nordyke birth certificate has defined borders. Obamas birth certificate does not have borders.
3. Nordyke birth certificate contains an easily identifiable seal; Obamas birth certificate does not have a seal.
4. Nordyke birth certificate contains certification, that the above is a true and correct copy of the record, while Obama birth certificate states record or ABSTRACT of the record. (emphasis added). Since abstract of record can be absolutely anything, including old wives tales, literary, there is a need to inspect the original birth certificate in the health department.
Release of records typically involves balancing of the rights of the individual whose records are revealed against the rights of the public.
As Mr. Obama revealed his purported birth certificate with great fanfare and called all doubters carnival barkers,- he clearly will have no valid privacy claims in opposition to a request to see his original birth certificate in the Health Department in Hawaii.
On the other hand, there is a significant public interest. LTC Lakin is sitting in prison, denied a right to know, -whether we have a legitimate president.
Many others around the country have similar doubts. These doubts were enhanced by the following facts:
a. Mr. Obamas selective service certificate (Exhibit 3) shows him using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425
b. Social Security Verification Systems (Exhibit 4) show that this number was never assigned to Mr. Obama.
If Mr. Obama had a valid long form birth certificate, issued to him in 1961 in the state of Hawaii, he did not need to resort to using an invalid Connecticut Social Security number.
American citizens are entitled to know, whether an individual occupying the position of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief is committing Social Security fraud and elections fraud.
As such the Public Interest greatly outweighs any privacy concerns Mr. Obama might have.
1. I respectfully request access to the original 1961 birth certificate of Mr. Obama for me and my forensic document experts.
2. I request a clarification, whether a computer image presented by Mr. Obama as a true and correct copy of his birth certificate, was actually signed by you
2. If you indeed signed this document, what was used as the original? As it does not resemble the original documents from 1961, did you use a notation in archives as an abstract and the basis for creating this document.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Thanks for the ping. Sounds like Kreep is a creep. And to make the case that born in the country is a NBC. Whats their game?
To run interference for the Usurper...
Are Berg and Kreep competing to get recognition of being the firsts to file or is it a macho showdown. Why NOT be unity to fight the same case on the same level???
Regarding the b.c. Leo Donofrio is very impressed by Miss Tickly’s exposing tampering with the document!!!
Interesting, running interference might be. To think that born in the country with foreign father is a NBC cannot be based on lack of understanding.
"This is a supplemental brief, that I filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Attention clerk of the court:
On May 2, 2011 undersigned conducted oral argument in the above captioned case in front of Honorable Justices Berzon, Fisher and Pregerson. Justices were trying to ascertain, what would be the correct timing in filing a legal action, questioning legitimacy of the President of the United States.
FRAP 28 (j) Citation of Supplemental Authorities
Third District Court of Appeals of CA, in Keyes et al v Bowen et al C 062321 Third District Court of Appeals of CA which was based on a prior decision in Robinson v Bowen 567 F. Supp. 2d at p1147 from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA. Both Robinson and Keyes dealt with the challenge of presidential eligibility. Robinson dealt with the challenge of the eligibility of senator McCain in light of his birth in the city of Colon, Panama and Keyes challenged eligibility of senator Obama in light of lack of long form birth certificate. Both cases were filed against the Secretary of State of CA Debra Bowen. Both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA and the Third District court of Appeals in Ca concurred that the proper time to challenge presidential eligibility, is after the election and after the congressional confirmation.
Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial reviewif anyshould occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.] (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.) (emphasis added)
Undersigned would like to remind this court that she filed this action on the Inauguration day. Defendant, Mr. Obama, could not memorize the oath of office and Chief Justice Roberts had to come back to the White House and give Mr. Obama a make up oath. By that time Taitz already filed this legal action. As such, the timing was perfect: it was executed after the legislative process ran its course and before the defendant, Mr. Obama, was sworn in..
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ"
I thought she did a credible job, as I listened to the CSPAN video.
I also caught something that deJute (US Atty) said, when asked by a judge: what would be the appropriate time to challenge?
His response: the election.
We seem to have one coming up...
Has anyone ever checked to see if Taitz is actually admitted to practice?
She needs to hire a bright law student to proof read her submissions before filing.
So there is another hearing after this one? I have not been following this one too closely....
I suspect so. That true, rx?
Even if the fed attorney was referring to a candidates right to timely protest the eligibility of another primary candidate, the attorney conveniently made no mention of the fact that Congress, in order to perform its duty during the 12th As Joint Session, empowered itself via statute to challenge a President elects eligibility.
That leads to what may be one of plaintiffs arguments - until the Joint Session closed, a court could conclude Congress had not yet completed its statutory procedure and judicial intervention was premature and improper. I.e., no triable issue arose until after the Joint Session.
Under that view, the objective would be to obtain meaningful court involvement subsequent to the Session and sufficiently in advance of the first day of the term of office.
The problem now, of course, is that he is the President and the only branch able to remove him is Congress. The best any court can do is to hand down a felony conviction or confirm that NBC requires two citizen parents, in which case Congress will be embarrassed if it takes no action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.