Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
I disagree.
All Obama has to do is show the real, original birth certificate he claimed to have possession of, in one of his books.
This needs explaining before anyone starts drawing up the Articles of Impeachment.
Yep, except for this one little nasty detail. Accessory to a crime. This stink bomb might spread.
Never thought of that. He'd also be able to pardon every person who was complicit in this, that would (hopefully)destroy any chances of a lot of Senators and Congressmen chances of re election.I had the same thought after I already hit the POST button :/
This is going to be a real mess if it proves authentic.. :p
I recall reading that there is a US congressman in Indonesia right now looking into that very issue.
“Book Forty-four B,
Our Forty-fourth president.
The fraud is exposed”.
Ugh!! You might be right.
Yes, that’s right, though I suppose there’s still a risk of it being thrown out on appeal?
This could be forged. heck, if people can be fooled with million dollar Monet’s then a Birth Certificate should be a piece of cake...no news yetJMHO.
Independence from the United Kingdom
- Date December 12, 1963
- Republic declared December 12, 1964
The House reviewed the election results and determined that an eligible person had received a majority of the electoral votes as Vice President and that person was elected. The legal consequence of his election is that he is to serve as President until an eligible person is elected to that office.
As I have said on a number of occasions here, I remain of the view that the most likely party to force the issue is the military. I actually wonder what the Joint Chiefs and their attorneys at the Judge Advocate General's Office are thinking about--they don't have the cover of treaties and law for their actions; they all have personal liability (at least arguably).
Whether they act directly or indirectly by attempting to open negotiations with Congress over a proper remedy, you should expect that the military would ultimately take action.
The real legal remedy is that the House of Representatives suspends its rules and tables a motion to reconsider the vote affirming the election of Obama. Maybe there need to be hearings or investigation; maybe there would be other evidence. The House might even look at the evidence and decide that he was born in Hawaii and eligible.
Assuming the House reaches the conclusion we have--he was born in Kenya and not eligible, they have the remedy of telling the military to move him out of the White House if he doesn't move voluntarily. Biden continues to act as President pending certification of an eligible President.
At that point, under the 20th Amendment, the House is to choose among others receiving electoral votes. McCain is the only person who got such votes.
Now I know the McCain debate has been in process for some time--the actual legal is posted in several places here; complete with consideration of the various legislative acts and their impact on his status--anyone who wants to argue about it should at least look at the legal authorities that are applicable and be prepared to address them if they want to argue McCain's position.
The bottom line is that McCain is clearly not eligible either.
The only reports of actual tabulation of Electoral College vote I have seen show only McCain and Obama getting votes. At one point, I heard that a Texas electoral voter had cast his ballot for Ron Paul--that doesn't appear from any of the reported records and I assume it is not true.
I have done no research and have not considered the question of the options of the House of Representatives if no eligible candidate received votes.
I'm going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
" ”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.
There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
” 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.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.
If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.
3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
Yes, he was quite rude. And Michelle hit the Queen on the back!
I agree with you. If he can go to the trouble of finding alleged “experts” to debunk the Kenyan COLS, why not spring for 12 bucks or whatever it is and produce a Hawaiian vault certificate?
Presumably some family member needed a BC for little Barry back in 1964. So they wrote the Office of Principal Registrar applying for a copy. Mr. Oduya then pulled Book 44B off the shelf, made a copy of page 5733 (thick book!), signed it, stamped it, and sent it off into history. And now it turns up in Dr. Taitz's office. Where did it spend the intervening 45 years??
Someone needs to visit Coast Province and have a look at Book 44B. I'm sure it all check out, aren't you?
” These announcements were the result of routine postings by Hawaiian Department of Health officials and not private individuals...”
Can you document this practice from almost 50 years ago ?
Do you know whether the Honolulu papers would refuse to print a birth announcement
called in from another source ?
My mother used to call our hometown paper when ever a new grandchild was born.
None of us , including Mom ,lived there anymore
and
it was a quick way to let family and friends know about the birth.
It was always printed and
was treated like a routine social notice ala Mr and Mrs Smith celebrated
their golden wedding anniversary.
The last time this was done was 18 years ago.
I used to work for the same paper one summer in high school and I wrote down
whatever anyone called in regarding birth, social events etc and it got printed.
If the birth announcements were legitimately printed at the time and
they can’t be sourced back to a specific hospital, my money is on grandma Toot calling it in.
The early 60s were still very staid.
I don’t care how liberal the Dunhams were,
having a girl barely out of high school “in trouble “ by an older African man must have been enormously embarrassing.
Grandma Toot would want to give the appearance of legitimacy by calling in a birth announcement.
Obama wrote in Dreams that he had definite doubts that his parents were ever legally married.
Before printing Mr and Mrs would the papers determine if a couple were actually legally married ?
Hawaiian officials are seriously parsing their language, and in every statement they reference the Laws and provisions of Hawaii. Not US law. Not constitutional Law. They are covering butt too.
Yup. They're waiting for authentication. You don't post a "maybe".
Great stuff thanks so much, my two favorite females are Sarah and Orly.
I try to ignore his obfuscation. I believe it is a game and a distraction.
the child's citizenship (Barry's) followed that of the custodial parent (Stanley), meaning that he also became an Indonesian citizen and that if he ever did regain his U.S. citizenship, it would only have been as a naturalized citizen
True and there is the British citizenship possibility. Or other possibilities. I am agnostic about those possibilities and have never argued for or against them. But in this thread, on this topic, I am pointing out that we need to carefully consider the possibility that the document in the photo is forged.
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.