Skip to comments.OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST
Posted on 01/26/2012 5:55:04 AM PST by RaceBannon
Article II SUPERPAC streaming live video and audio at this link
The only way to FORCE the media to cover it is if it hits big on talk radio FIRST, and then gets big from there. Only then will the Media in the United States report the fact that Palintifs on a case which states Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because he refused to prove otherwise.
The burden of proof is on Obama, and he has REFUSED to prove it.
And unless Talk Radio picks it up, it will never get to the Main Stream Media. And Talk Radio ain’t picking it up.
I am angry and frustrated. This turned out in our favor, but I am not sure it matters a wet fart in a dry wind.
You have to understand there is a long going Orly is an idiot group with the sole purpose of disrupting these threads.
The phrase is in the constitution and the supremes have the authority to define and apply it after their clerks do the research.
This is an article I barely perused but something caught my eye in it.
The author was a Dean at that law school at the time. He talks about how a Justice repeatedly misquoted Article IV, Section 2 by ONE WORD in order to make his case in the Slaughterhouse cases. BTW, the lower court in Wong talked about those cases and stripped away a sentence as Dicta.
I really can’t fathom why Gray pulled the number he did in Wong but it just goes to show you that the law will be decided how they want to that day and they will find a way to make it happen - even if it goes against another case that they previously decided a different way.
No need for opinion. In GA if you are ineligible no votes for you are counted.
“She claims the president was born in Indonesia and went under different names as a young student during his time in Indonesia.”
I expect this to be debunked. I have never heard Orly claim this in any prior voluminous filing in other cases and certainly not in this case, IIRC.
So far the reports I have seen said she put up pictures of Barry in HI and Barry in Indonesia said there was confusion about his identity.
I've only posted in three or four birther threads in the past month or so, and even those were because someone linked me to them. I don't see any new argument worth commenting on, and the birthers have been getting nastier and nastier as the failures pile up.
That might be the ticket to wake up Mr. and Mrs. Voter. It might also put some fire under Lakin's commanders.
ok now you are being a DELIBERATE LIAR
you posted your own words
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...
And it was answered...
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Be sure to note in that second snippet that the ...by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution... was omitted.
I ask of you as well...why would somebody claiming to be a natural born citizen cite a case based upon the 14th amendment making them a citizen by statute, not by nature?
If you haven’t been on the threads from the beginning of this mess you wouldn’t understand.....My dad’s 92, a retired lawyer who graduated at the top of his class and was awarded a position as clerk in the federal court system for his effort. He through me has been following this “situation” long before the FR lawyers got on the threads.....Does that explain it enough.
here is what happend today:
Given the testimony from todays court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judges chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obamas name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obamas attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judges chambers.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judges chambers.
Has Obamas attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the courts subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Court is called to order.
Obamas birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obamas fathers place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obamas book, Dreams from My Father entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his fathers history is mentioned. It states that his fathers passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obamas fathers status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between citizen and Natural Born Citizen using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obamas father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obamas appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obamas mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obamas father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obamas father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obamas book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obamas mother for her passport listing Obamas last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obamas background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by unsharp mask in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obamas documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obamas SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obamas identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some a LOT of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.
“I really cant fathom why Gray pulled the number he did in Wong”
To protect the presidency of the man who appointed him to the bench. If Arthur was found to be ineligible and removed, Gray would have suffered the same fate. He had material interest in helping hide Arthur’s status and what it meant.
I’m not trying to impugn you, you’re doing a good job of that all by yourself, I’m just letting you do it and not trying to stop you.
You missed that part where he tried to brush away Wong Kim Ark . I had a hard time understanding him. Exactly what did he say?
Hey, Lakin shouldn’t be feeling so lonely now. Not only did Obama refuse to show any documentation for his sake, he refused to show documentation for the sake of every GA voter and for the sake of all the Fogbow folks. Lotta people under that bus now...
And that’s about the only way the Fogbow folks will ever be found in the same class as Terry Lakin.
Mark simultaneously wrote two books ... one on the Constitution, and one on his dog. Apparently his dog ate Article II out of Mark's copy of the Constitution, because Mark never mentions it, or gives any hint that there just might be a question about Obama's Constitutional eligibility.
As to helping Orly. Well that's been tried. "A" for effort. "F" for legal knowledge and practice. "F-" on her briefs. After this, she should ask the dean for a "W" and just withdraw.
Yeah, "she kept it alive." What she really kept alive were Obama's attorneys, who billed millions just travelling around and having her cases thrown out.
BTW, she is absolutely 100% right. Her big win should come in Hawaii, where the authorities are breaking state law by not letting everyone who asks poke around in the records room.
I admire the woman's pluck, but why-o-why were people stuck on the Hawaii thing ... when the "Natural Born Citizen" issue was front and center? Team Obama will play "Birth Certificate" all day ... and win. They can't even come on the field for "NBC."
A few years back (Fall of 2008) I had a phone conversation with the now deceased Congressman Billy Bob over the brither issues. I wanted to hire him to get a lawsuit started challenging Obama’s NBC status. Bottom line then, according to him was that even if it is shown Obama is the bastard son of a girl not quite old enough to convey citizenship to him in 1961 Hawaii, the SCOTUS is not going to overturn an election on that slim discrepancy not is the Congress going to remove a sitting black president on the grtounds that he missed eligibility by two or three months at birth! I had to agree, sadly, and never institued the lawsuit. I even had material which has never seen public reading which show Barry was not even born in the USA but his mtoher broguht him back tot he U.S. within the first month of his life, but that is no more useful now than it would have been in fall of 2008. The establishmen will not dislodge the lying bastard so we are stuck with the current approach to prevent him from being on ballots for the 2012 elections.
Who is Fogbow?
The judge heard each of the three cases separately. The attorneys can only object in their own case, not the other cases, IIRC. So Orly could not object to the COLB and LFBCs being placed into evidence as presumed (not authenticated) to be genuine.
The only thing I know is that more will be revealed.
The only way to FORCE the media to cover it is if it hits big on talk radio FIRST
Rush never mentioned in in all his 2 hours
if he did then I must have dozed off
but he was too busy bashing Newt
at 4PM Sean has yet to say something
he too is singing Romneys praises
I had to laugh when he played a Newt ad exposing Romney instead of a Romney one that lied about Newt..
I thought Sean was going to cry...
umm... am I mistaken or did you call me willfully ignorant AND a deliberate liar?...because I dont AGREE with you?
You are mistaken, I didn't post it "...because I dont AGREE with you"
I posted it because I believe that you are smart enough, and well informed enough to know full well your opinion did not square with facts well known to those skilled in the art, or even those merely reasonably well informed.
Which brings us back to the question of your scientific specialty. The question you are apparently ashamed or afraid to answer.
It kinda reminds me of someone who would spend thousands of courtroom hours and millions of dollars to avoid showing their $12 birth certificate.
If the BC fabrication somehow gets legs (and I doubt it will), would you be willing to publish it?
Obama, Homeland Security Chertoff and the Senate agree with the TWO US PARENT definition. Thomas said the SCOTUS was "evading" the issue. To me, that says they know something smells.
Nice try ... fail.
My #800 the article in that other FR thread..
by craig anderson...
he was there and either taped the proceedings
or typed real fast...
You are guilty of the offense of Leo D. You are trying to interject what they should have said if they wanted to say.
Read the Court of Appeals case of Ankey. It actually addresses this.
I might remind you that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA stated that the RULING of Wong Kim Ark was that Ark was a natural born citizen in their brief.
HOWEVER, all you really have to do is understand ONE CONCEPT.
It is pretty simple.
The Majority Opinion in Wong Kim Ark stated that the 14th amendment was declaratory. So did the Dissent. The Dissent didn’t agree with the ruling but set forth that this is what the majority ruled.
So, do you understand what it means to say that the 14th Amendment is declaratory?????
Look at how many paragraphs talk about natural born citizen as it related to Common Law.
If Common Law indicated that Ark is a natural born citizen and the 14th Amendment is Declaratory - what does that mean for Ark?
If YOU don’t understand what it means - read Justice Fuller’s dissent. He understand what it meant in terms of someone running for President. He disagreed with the notion and put it in his dissent.
You would be better served, as would this site, and your cause to actually understand what they meant and try to put forth a defense AGAINST Wong Kim Ark.
I will repeat what I have said repeatedly, those of you that support Vattel should understand that Wong REJECTED it.
Appreciate the ‘cliffnotes’ version. If the video is ever put up on the Internet, I would love to watch it all.
BS....you’ve been polutting these threads since the issue firsr arrose.
Try your lies with some one else.
Try your lies with some one else.
Won’t happen until the judgement is rendered officially. Then it is a “factual event” that they can discuss, rather than being hearsay.
You should be thrown out of here.
Here is a simple question...Did the court declare Ark a natural born citizen?
My theory is that he was rebuking the explicit racism of the Chinese Exclusion act and the Dred Scot v Sanford decisions. He wanted to make a political statement by forcing people whom he considered to be racists into accepting other races as equals whether they liked it or not. He wanted to ram it down their throats and watch them sputter and gag. It's really that simple.
You must remember, Republicans of that era became famous for "waving the bloody shirt." Excoriating the Previously Rebellious and Racist Democrats was a popular pastime in national politics after the civil war.
but it just goes to show you that the law will be decided how they want to that day and they will find a way to make it happen - even if it goes against another case that they previously decided a different way.
Exactly. The law means what the current judges SAY it means, with some respect to Precedent if it doesn't offend the current judges too badly. If it does, OUT WITH IT!
We are not a nation of laws, but of men. (and women.)
Actually, they could have been presented for the singular proposition that they were offered by O as authentic. Thus, he admits that Sr. was African.
Actually, just last December or late November (I don’t recall exact date), 2011, the facts surfaced through an unexpected channel, a Canadian source, so I don’t have to stick my neck out to get this into the public domain now.
any news on this..?
thanks in advance.
I don’t have the energy or connections to get one started in Cal. But I would contribute should some one initiate a case.
Are you accusing me of using multiple accounts?
Her mother was a CPA and took a job in Alabama. They had been living there for several months when one day the mother called upstairs to the daughter.."Have you tidied your room yet?"
The reply came back..."I'm fixin' to do it"
They were back in Boston within three months!
This would presume the unproven fact that Justice Gray knew anything about it. I very much doubt that Chester Arthur collaborated with Judge Gray to protect both their secrets. A more likely explanation is that which I posted to Rummy Girl above. Republican Justice Gray wanted to Slap down those Racist Democrats and rebuke Justice Tanney in Dred Scott v Sanford. He saw no danger to the Presidency from his actions and it just felt too good for him to resist moralizing against the Democrats he hated.
“in the record” or “into evidence?” I suspect you already know, the two are not the same. If the COLB was not admitted into evidence, Sven and others who seem apoplectic over the issue, appear to be worrying needlessly.
Here is a simple question.
Did the majority opinion AND the Dissent of Wong Kim Ark indicate that the majority opinion was that the 14th Amendment was declaratory of the Common Law Doctrine on citizenship.
That's fair. I understand that you don't want to get caught up in the circus.
But, if the SHTF and the BC forgery suddenly becomes a topic of national discussion, your info might help to explain what happened. However, I don't know how one would publish it and authenticate it, anonymously.
I don't know what really happened, and I suspect that Obama himself might not know. But under the circumstances, I can understand why his grandparents would have fabricated a US citizenship for him.
Nonsense. WKA was not found to be a "natural born Citizen", only a "citizen."
And the state of Indiana case of Ankeny confirms that the WKA court did not find WKA to be a "natural born Citizen."
If you have such material, why not post it now? Many of us would be very interested to see it.
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.