Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2nd bite to challenge Obama's eligibility?
WND ^ | December 09, 2012 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 12/10/2012 10:41:24 AM PST by Perseverando

Famous justice has had 'serious questions' about birth certificate

A longstanding eligibility case challenging Barack Obama’s presence in the White House soon could be headed to the state Supreme Court in Alabama, where one justice already in a court filing has questioned the authenticity of Obama’s documentation, and the incoming chief justice is a dyed-in-the-wool Constitution supporter with little tolerance for those who want to bypass the document.

The move is pending in an eligibility challenge brought by Hugh McInnish and others against the Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman.

The case most recently was turned down by a state district judge, Eugene Reese, who got his opinion into the mix by determining that the case was “ordered, adjudged and decreed” to be dismissed.

The case calls for a determination that Chapman “has a duty to verify the eligibility of those seeking office.”

In a recent brief in the case, attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and now of the Klayman Law Firm in Washington, noted that while the state is arguing it should not be tasked with making sure candidates are eligible, the submission by the state itself suggests otherwise.

“[An attorney general's opinion] is not case precedent binding on this court … Nevertheless, it constitutes an admission by Alabama’s chief law enforcement officer on behalf of the state that if the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source about a candidate’s eligibility then she ‘should not’ certify the candidate.”

The issue is the conflict over the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which demands, “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…”

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: ajntsa; arpaio; bethchapman; birthcertificate; birther; birthers; certifigate; klayman; naturalborncitizen; tomparker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

Racist


21 posted on 12/10/2012 12:19:14 PM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

SOMEONE has to be respopnsbible for making sure the president is eligible

Who the hell is it, if not every single citizen?

We are ALL affected by his actions so we ALL have “standing”


22 posted on 12/10/2012 12:27:28 PM PST by Mr. K (some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarbM
The USA was not issuing/getting visa's for Pakistan.

That is simply not the case. First, Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, not 1978. Second, I traveled to Pakistan during the period 1979 to 1981 multiple times, albeit using my diplomatic passport.

However, I can say there was no problem in getting visas to go to Pakistan for Americans. There was a travel advisory warning of possible terrorist attacks, but there was no prohibition for Americans to travel there nor did the Government of Pakistan stop issuing visas to Americans. I met many Americans during my trips to Pakistan including school teachers, businessmen, etc.

23 posted on 12/10/2012 12:57:48 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BarbM

“I’d like to know what passport he used in 1978 when he went to PAKITSTAN.”

Because he used a second passport, a passport of another country. He left his U.S.passport at home.


24 posted on 12/10/2012 1:28:03 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Ref post #23.

Thank you for that information.


25 posted on 12/10/2012 1:28:11 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
Some people believe Obama’s Original Long Form BC is a forgery. It could be a forgery because he was born in Kenya or because it never existed.

Instead of demanding the State of Hawaii to incriminate themselves in “Obama Forgerygate,” the U.S. DHS should produce Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization to prove Obama was not born in Hawaii.

DHS has never been asked if Obama was a naturalized citizen and couldn’t be incriminated in a coverup. Once Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization sees the light of day, the we’ll know Hawaii was part of the conspiracy to coverup Obama’s ineligibility.

Ah, so put another way, you have no, zero, nadda evidence to support your oft posted assertion. That about right?

26 posted on 12/10/2012 2:11:34 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

Yes, that was completely ridiculous. Clearly, the State of Hawaii has something to hide with respect to Sunahara’s BC. If I were the brother, I would sue again, and again, and again...


27 posted on 12/10/2012 3:03:10 PM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

If I were Duncan, I’d take it all the way up the Judicial ladder. Perhaps funds are a problem. Maybe he should start a fundraiser website so he can at least SEE his deceased sister’s original birth records. And he should take Doug Vogt with him!


28 posted on 12/10/2012 6:44:48 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

Absolutely untrue.

Stanley Ann advised the U.S. State Department a family member included on her previous U.S. passport would have to be excluded from her renewed U.S. Passport because (Barack Hussein Obama, Soebarkah) had naturalized in a foreign state on Aug 13, 1968. (Pics of the passport renewal have been posted on Free Republic on other threads. Search for it.)

In 1968, U.S. SoS Dean Rusk issued Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, a Certificate of Loss of Nationality because he had moved out of the country and naturalized in a foreign state. It is considered an abandonment of nationality or allegiance and does not require an Oath of Renunciation.

This issuance of a CLN by SoS Rusk to minor who moved out of the U.S. and naturalized in a foreign state were common. Some children sued SoS Rusk in US Federal Court to recapture their U.S. Citizenship status and natural-born citizenship status. Usually, they won their case. I’m not a lawyer, but search CLN case history in U.S. Federal Court to read some of the cases.

Most children issued a CLN by SoS Rusk, like Obama, did nothing. Consequently, the U.S. State Department instituted a policy to reinstate expatriates issued CLNs until 6 months after their 18th birthday if they applied for it with CAO at a U.S. Embassy. See U.S. State Department Policy Guidelines published in pdf online.

With Obama’s Connecticut SSN and his autobiographical statements concerning traveling internationally as an Unaccompanied Minor with foreign nationality, we know he was taken into Federal Protective custody and placed with Catholic Social Services of Connecticut. If Obama was a U.S. Citizen in 1971, he would have been released to his grandmother at the airport or taken into custody by Hawaii Social Services. In 1971, Catholic Social Services of Connecticut and Lutheran Social Services were the only social service agencies contracted with US HHS to take custody of Unaccompanied Minors with foreign nationality appearing at a US Border.


29 posted on 12/10/2012 7:11:40 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

A child refugee becomes president of the United States.


30 posted on 12/11/2012 4:59:07 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

An original document must be produced. For every expert that claims a forgery, there is at least another expert that claims it is not. That battle cannot be won.


31 posted on 12/11/2012 5:12:12 AM PST by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Like his step-father, then his father, and then his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, Obama was on scholorship with the East-West Center when he attended Occidental College as a visiting student, foreign national. Also, like his step-father, then his father, and then his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, Obama was required to return to his home country, Indonesia, for two years.

Unfortunately, it was not safe for Obama to return to Indonesia for an extended period of time. So, he was granted a waiver and visited Pakistan at the end of his scholarship. Thus, the visit to Pakistan to learn the difference between Shia and Shiite.


32 posted on 12/11/2012 10:54:33 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen; MileHi

Absolutely untrue.

Stanley Ann advised the U.S. State Department a family member included on her previous U.S. passport would have to be excluded from her renewed U.S. Passport because (Barack Hussein Obama, Soebarkah) had naturalized in a foreign state on Aug 13, 1968. (Pics of the passport renewal have been posted on Free Republic on other threads. Search for it.)

In 1968, U.S. SoS Dean Rusk issued Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, a Certificate of Loss of Nationality because he had moved out of the country and naturalized in a foreign state. It is considered an abandonment of nationality or allegiance and does not require an Oath of Renunciation.

This issuance of a CLN by SoS Rusk to minor who moved out of the U.S. and naturalized in a foreign state were common. Some children sued SoS Rusk in US Federal Court to recapture their U.S. Citizenship status and natural-born citizenship status. Usually, they won their case. I’m not a lawyer, but search CLN case history in U.S. Federal Court to read some of the cases.

Most children issued a CLN by SoS Rusk, like Obama, did nothing. Consequently, the U.S. State Department instituted a policy to reinstate expatriates issued CLNs until 6 months after their 18th birthday if they applied for it with CAO at a U.S. Embassy. See U.S. State Department Policy Guidelines published in pdf online.

With Obama’s Connecticut SSN and his autobiographical statements concerning traveling internationally as an Unaccompanied Minor with foreign nationality, we know he was taken into Federal Protective custody and placed with Catholic Social Services of Connecticut. If Obama was a U.S. Citizen in 1971, he would have been released to his grandmother at the airport or taken into custody by Hawaii Social Services. In 1971, Catholic Social Services of Connecticut and Lutheran Social Services were the only social service agencies contracted with US HHS to take custody of Unaccompanied Minors with foreign nationality appearing at a US Border.”

Sven,

Do you have documentation that you can post,— the same way the passport app for SADO was,— for the assertions that you have made regarding the CLN?


33 posted on 12/11/2012 2:53:44 PM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

obumpa


34 posted on 12/11/2012 10:08:02 PM PST by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen; WildHighlander57
... we know he was taken into Federal Protective custody and placed with Catholic Social Services of Connecticut.

But "we" don't "know" any such thing. I agree the whole story is intriguing, but so far as I know in the dozens (hundreds?) of posts you have made about this you have not posted a single thing to support the story.

Do you have a link to this Catholic social services of Connecticut who is supposed to have facilitated all this?

35 posted on 12/11/2012 10:32:39 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2955775/posts#comment

See post #34, comments to sven, comments by Sven and comments byto me.

Interesting.


36 posted on 12/12/2012 7:03:11 AM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

It is interesting, just no meat.


37 posted on 12/12/2012 8:04:14 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

The one who is legally authorized to tell us whether it is a forgery is Alvin Onaka, the HI state registrar who has custody of the original record. And he has disclosed that they have no legally valid record for Obama, since he cannot verify any birth facts even though the ones claimed on the forgery “match” the original record. He has also disclosed that the posted long-form is NOT a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and the information contained in it is NOT “identical to” the claims in the original record - in two different (and consistent) legal actions, so neither one is “just a fluke”.

IOW, it has been legally acknowledged by the proper legal authority that there is no legally valid record. The short-form and long-form are both thus exposed as forgeries. And there are no legally-determined birth facts for Obama based on a Hawaii birth certificate. Without a legally-valid HI birth record, Obama would have had to use a different birth certificate his whole life long, which would explain why his records have all been sealed.

The challenge, as always, is to find anybody in the courts or anywhere in the system who will say it even matters. And that is a very, very sad statement of where this country is at - especially sad because a country this undeserving will not be able to remain free for any significant length of time. If this is really where America is at, then America is over.


38 posted on 12/12/2012 5:39:17 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was” — Obama, “Dreams from my Father”

The WH BC PDF displays “BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA” as the Full Name of Father.

Either “Dreams” or the WH BC PDF is a lie.

Obama’s lawyers have rightfully stated in court that the WH BC PDF can not be relied upon, yet after months of stalling HIDOH made AZ SOS Bennett ask for “verification” of the WH BC PDF in lieu of a certified copy of the BC. The “verification letter” sent to AZ SOS Bennett did not “verify” any of the following items:

Gender
Date of Birth
City and Island of Birth
Name of Father
Name of Mother

The “verification letter” goes on to state, “I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth... attached with your request matches the original in our files”

HIDOH declined to verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth is a “true and accurate copy of the original record” instead stating it “matches”.

Claims on the COLB may match claims in HIDOH records, but HIDOH declined to certify those claims as true facts.

What the difference? Glad you asked.

An illustration:

Let’s say I have a sheet of paper listing 10 items and you have a sheet of paper listing 5 items.

You ask me to verify that your sheet of paper is “a true and accurate copy” of my sheet of paper.

I decline. It is not “a true and accurate copy” of my sheet of paper.

I instead offer to verify that items on your sheet of paper match items on my sheet of paper.

You accept.

I then go through the items on your sheet of paper and verify that they match items on my sheet of paper.

So what about those other 5 items on my sheet of paper? Items that you have no knowlege of?

In the case of the WH BC PDF and HIDOH’s “verification letter” those additional items are amendments. Amendments to the name of the father, for example.

HIDOH is by law required to verify facts submitted. They declined. The only reason for not certifying the submitted facts as “true and accurate representations” is because they can not legally do so.

“Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was” says Obama, yet The WH BC PDF displays “BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA” as the Full Name of Father. It can’t be both ways.

For the above reasons, and the refusal to present to any election official or court the document underlying the WH BC PDF, there is no reason to believe the WH BC PDF is the truth and every reason to believe it is a lie.


39 posted on 12/12/2012 8:32:11 PM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: imemyself

I was a Court Appointed Advocate, trained by Beth Chapman.

She is a conservative bordering on ultra conservative. I have no doubt that Beth will do the right thing.


YAWN..


40 posted on 12/12/2012 8:35:54 PM PST by AFret. ("Charlie don't surf ! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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