Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Submits Obama Investigation Affidavit In Obama Florida Election Challenge
BirtherReport.com ^ | December 13, 2012 | Larry Klayman

Posted on 12/14/2012 6:56:02 PM PST by Seizethecarp

On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Defendant Obama published on the internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama, Sr.

No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Defendant Obama's birth within the United States. Instead, there is credible evidence that the "birth certificate" published on the internet was altered or otherwise fraudulent. Exhibit 1.

Even if this birth certificate is authentic, it would only establish that Defendant Obama was born to a U.S. citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and a father who was a British subject. In fact, Barack Hussein Obama Sr, Defendant Obama's father, was never a citizen of the United States, was only in the United States on a student visa, and was later deported from the United States.

(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: afterbirfturds; birftards; florida; joearpaio; naturalborncitizen; obama
The same mid-2012 affidavits from Arpaio, Zullo, and Corsi that were used in the filing to attempt to keep Barry off of the ballot have been re-filed now that Barry has won the electoral votes in Florida.
1 posted on 12/14/2012 6:56:18 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: null and void; LucyT; Red Steel

Secondary article title (more accurate):

“Update: Attorney Larry Klayman Files Final Opposition To Obama’s Motion To Dismiss Florida Election Challenge; Sheriff Joe Arpaio Affidavit Included”

I guess that if Barry has lost Florida, this case could not have been brought. So here’s hoping that in the end, if Klayman prevails (OK, not likely), I won’t have to feel ashamed of Florida.


2 posted on 12/14/2012 6:59:38 PM PST by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/12/florida-obama-election-challenge-update.html

25 page court document—lays out the case, documents legal and historical precendent, and contains affadavits to the Court from Mike Zullo, Sheriff Arpaio, and Jerome Corsi.

Filed December 13, 2012.

Seeks immediate hearing due to import of case and immediacy of Electors voting for President.


3 posted on 12/14/2012 7:20:37 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

4 posted on 12/14/2012 7:29:13 PM PST by Godebert (No Person Except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exit82

It would be so nice to see the courts follow the law and uphold the Constitution.

Thank you, Sheriff Joe, for all your hard work.


5 posted on 12/14/2012 7:44:46 PM PST by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: generally

Agree


6 posted on 12/14/2012 7:57:06 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Godebert; Seizethecarp; LucyT; null and void; Spaulding; little jeremiah

Thank you.


7 posted on 12/14/2012 8:08:05 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: generally; butterdezillion; All

BUMP!


8 posted on 12/14/2012 8:09:29 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

Thanks for the ping!


9 posted on 12/14/2012 8:35:07 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

you can on,y challenge something that has been submitted

has his BC been submitted anywhere??

if so... file forgery charges now


10 posted on 12/14/2012 8:41:23 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: generally

Sheriff Joe has definitely tried.

No paper LFBC of Obama has ever been submitted to a civilian nor federal court of law. They fight doing so. It is only a $10 document.

Why fight rather than spend $10?

There must be a reason, or reasons.


11 posted on 12/14/2012 8:54:21 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sten

“No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Defendant Obama’s birth within the United States.”

Klayman is using the legal term of art “produced” meaning entered into evidence in a court of law subject to the rules of evidence and challenge by a plaintiff.

Klayman’s plaintiff, Voeltz, is a Florida “elector” (registered voter who happens to be a Democrat...not electoral college member) who has standing under Florida statute, according to Klayman’s reading.

Klayman’s plaintiff is challenging Barry’s “win” in the absence of any non-forged proof that he was born in the US to two US citizen parents. Voeltz is not challenging a BC submitted by Barry but challenging eligibility in the absence of legal “production” of a BC by Barry.

IANAL, but that is my understanding.


12 posted on 12/14/2012 8:57:00 PM PST by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; All

Wonder if Obama Supporters like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are still going to attack “Birthers”, and compare people like Sherrif Arpaio, other patriots to “9/11 Truthers”?

The sickest part of all this Obama Eligibility is all the PhonyCons who claim to be “conservative”...but attack anyone who demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

Whose side are you really on?


13 posted on 12/14/2012 9:24:40 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (Seems that the ones who understand little about the economy are economists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Excellent Summary Godebert. Most citizens haven't the patience, and/or haven't studied the facts enough to feel they won't be ridiculed if they ask the question.

Most remarkably, while I think the constitutional evidence is overwhelming, and the behavior of Obama’s campaign committee, Clair McCaskill/Obama when they filed Senate Bill 2678 in Feb 2008, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, and when that failed to pass to make McCain eligible, Senate Resolution 511, in which every US Senator agreed with the testimony of Judge Michael Chertoff in April 2008, “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.” They all knew. A fix had been agreed to, involving both major parties.

Most remarkable is that Obama himself told us he was not a natural born citizen, knowing no politician would engage, nor would the press. Obama said in Fightthesmears.com, his website, “I am a native born citizen of the US.” That is the legal terminology for a naturalized citizen, the language of the 14th Amendment, which is the Naturalization Amendment. Obama has never had to lie about his status, knowing than no one would be allowed to ask. He has never claimed to be a natural born citizen, and our chief justice Roberts, who certainly knows both what Chief Justice Marshall clarified in The Venus, and what Chief Justice Morrison Waite defined in Minor v. Happersett, and Justice Gray confirmed as precedent in Wong Kim Ark. Obama has the same citizenship status as Wong Kim Ark. He is a naturalized, “Native-born citizen of the US”, like Wong Kim, and legally not eligible to hold the presidency. CJ Roberts decided that it was time to ignore a provision of the constitution, which most certainly suggests that Article II Section 1 will not be the last ignored. We see opportunities all around us.

If opportunities to suppress our Constitution don't happen incidentally, we should expect them to be manufactured such as giving Al-Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood the arms produced as the product of our labor with which to complete the domination of The Middle East, and annihilate Israel as they have promised to do again and again - before they attack and destroy the United States. Then Obama and company will have the rationale for martial law, and the complete restructuring of our society, whether under Sharia or progressive socialism. We are not defending our freedoms, and just as surely, losing them.

14 posted on 12/14/2012 10:29:10 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
"They all knew. A fix had been agreed to, involving both major parties."

Don't forget the military. The treason of the officer corps serving the Usurper is sickening. If just a handful of field grade officers had spoken up and upheld their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, Obama would never have been installed into office.

15 posted on 12/15/2012 3:29:51 AM PST by Godebert (No Person Except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

Exactly!
Not only are the lamestream media attacking us, but also the PhonyCons, including Malkin, Coulter, Glen Beck...., AND, even most of the tea parties and ‘conservative’ websites (e.g. Red States) (they won’t allow any talks of obama ineligibility!)

They all think that there are more important issues such as obamacare, elections....

Well, how has that worked out for you PhonyCons?
Obamacare wins, you PhonyCons lose;
obama wins, you PhonyCons lose....
all because you PhonyCons stupidly fight the ‘moves’ but not the ‘mover’!

If all of us had UNITED to expose the truth about his ineligibility, remove him, all his ‘policies’ and ‘appointees’ would have been null and void!


16 posted on 12/15/2012 4:57:31 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; All

‘He has never claimed to be a natural born citizen’
Actually he did, in the
‘Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper’ filed to Az in 2007.
See the sworn and notarized doc -

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/


17 posted on 12/15/2012 5:14:39 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj
"Actually he did, in the..."

Chrisj, I went to the page you pointed to and did not find an affidavit signed by Obama. It is unlikely since this is a form filed by the party chairperson, Nancy Pelosi, and if I recall, she submitted two forms for Hawaii, and probably for Arizona, the two states requiring affirmation of eligibility, and Obama did not sign the form for Hawaii. Only the party chair needed to sign it. If he said he was natural born, he is in conflict with his clear statement on “fightthesmears.com” that he was “...born a subject of the British Commonwealth, because my father was a British subject”. He was in fact a natural born subject of the British Commonwealth because the English definition of natural born subject makes any child of a British subject, regardless of where he is born, a natural born subject. Monarchs want all the subjects they can tax and/or conscript, unlike the US, where sole allegiance to our Constitution is part of the oath for naturalization.

Obama also called himself, quite correctly, “A native-born citizen of the US”. That is precisely the language used in Wong Kim Ark and based upon the 14th Amendment for making slaves, whose parents could not have been citizens, but who were born on our soil, into citizens. The children of 14th Amendment citizens, naturalized citizens, born on our soil, are thus natural born citizen. Wong was naturalized, not a natural-born citizen. Given that Obmaa is unequivocal about his background, whether or not we believe him, I would be surprised if he ever signed anything. He has been too careful to have made just one slip, given all the effort to promote McCain who Democrats had shown, again and again, to be ineligible.

18 posted on 12/15/2012 3:00:24 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Are you sure? I just saw the signed form at the link mentioned before.

Try this -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11107727/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Candidate-Nomination-Paper-State-of-Arizona-2007

That is the only time he claimed himself a natural born citizen.
This is a different form from the one signed by pelosi.

However, we cannot charge him with that because he can say that he believes he is a natural born citizen just because he was born in Hawaii, you know, playing stupid, although he claims himself a constitutional lawyer.


19 posted on 12/16/2012 5:01:27 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson