Free Republic

Is it possible Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Kenya, and the birth was later recorded in Honolulu?

See

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28068666/Timeline-Obama-Kenya-Possibility

I’m wondering if as the above excerpt says accurately from the dismissal, if the court intended to say “Article II, Section 1, Clause 4” or perhaps meant to say “Article II, Section 1, Clause 5”.

If I am correct then the appeal was not properly dismissed.

Can anybody contact the appellants and ask for verification?

I think the Lucas Smith BC is enforced by the document signed by his grandmother, thus leaning toward a Kenya birth and a British or Kenya nationality.

If Obama's grandmother submitted a Hawaii DOH birth certificate the document linked below might be that one.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24001567/Obama-BC-GMom

By submitting a birth certificate attesting to a birth, all other actions i.e. newspaper birth announcements would be published.

The image discovered earlier, it seems, is the document submitted as an application for the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II. Of course this is only a theory, until it can be examined and verified.

“He is being represented by the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”

No, “he” is not being represented by the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Orly Taitz made her case about Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, and by doing so, makes it a case against the US Government. Had she only made a case against Obama, he would have had to retain very expensive and highly experienced, personal attorneys, but the case might have been over by now, or underway.

Motion taken under submission.

What’s that mean?

flipping a cion?

Obama eligibility case survives 1st court test

A federal judge in California today listened to government lawyers argue that a lawsuit over President Obama’s eligibility should be immediately dismissed but refused to grant their request, saying he would make his decision and announce it later.

The result came this morning from U.S. District Judge David Carter, who already has set a tentative trial date for the dispute Jan. 26, 2010. The judge also already had lawyers draw up a tentative schedule for hearings and deadlines in preparation for the trial.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112015
http://bit.ly/WkA8K

Police will use various locations for checkpoints, along common arterial roads. A warrant is not needed to look at your vehicle, or to see you and your passengers. A warrant is not required to observe behaviors, or actions. Police may stop a vehicle, at fixed-checkpoints, to question the driver and occupants, to detect criminal activity, unlicensed drivers, expired insurance, and alcohol or drug abuse. Police and other community representatives, may dispense information literature, in multiple lanuages.
Fixed police checkpoints generate demographic data. A freedom of Information request may be needed to access the data, but cities usually provide it anyway. Driving is a privilege, there is no expectation of privacy, regarding what is freely observable to the public. The reduced expectancy concept has broadened police powers to conduct automobile searches without warrants, but they still must have probable cause to search a vehicle and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads, but instead must base stops of individual vehicles on probable cause or some ‘’articulable and reasonable suspicion’’

RE Post #186

The official national symbol of MEChA is an eagle holding a stick of dynamite in one claw, with a lighted fuse in its beak, and a macahuittle in the other claw.

This is a symbol of violence and anarchy. It is a symbol of anarchistic action and a call to propaganda.

Another icon, that is emerging as a symbol of anarchistic action and a call to propaganda, is the Mexican flag.

That's my opinion, what's yours?

Arrest of Illegal Aliens by State and Local Officers

Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers "whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977).

Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest warrant "shall be executed by a marshal or by some other officer authorized by law." The phrase, "some other officer," includes state and local officers. Bowdach, supra.

Section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1252c which provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported and left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

In the absence of a specific federal statute, the validity of an arrest without a warrant for violation of federal law by local peace officers is to be determined by reference to local law. See Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 589 (1948).

In approving a state trooper's arrest of persons who appeared to be illegal aliens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, simply, as follows: "A state trooper has general investigative authority to inquire into possible immigration violations." See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1984).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), that the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not evidence an intent to preclude local enforcement of the act's criminal provisions. Id. at 474. Based on the pertinent legislative history, the court of appeals rejected the argument that since 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c) specifically authorizes local officers to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326 contain no comparable provision, Congress must have intended that local officers be precluded from making arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326. Id. at 475. The decision warns, however, that the first violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) is a misdemeanor, and that if applicable state law authorizes law enforcement officers to arrest for misdemeanors only if committed in their presence, they would not be authorized to arrest aliens for illegal entry (unless the officers should happen to know that the alien had previously been convicted of illegal entry) unless they saw him/her cross the border.

The disappointing aspect of Gonzales is the statement that an alien's "inability to produce documentation does not in itself provide probable cause (to arrest)." See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, supra, at 16. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), aliens are issued registration cards and must carry such cards with them at all times. Aliens who gain entry without the requisite inspection, and who therefore are not issued such cards, violate 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Consequently, a law enforcement officer confronting an alien who is unable to produce documentation arguably has probable cause to believe that a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) (failure to possess documents or 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (entry without inspection) has occurred. (If the alien is undocumented and has been in the United States for longer than 30 days, he or she has also violated 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a)).

They have the right to remain silent.

I may see you applying for a job, and if so, you would produce documents, or not get hired.

The charge of "false arrest" is a scare tactic, to make you rethink your actions, so they can avoid their job, but if your are making a lawful arrest, then false arrest won't stick.

Let me e'splain somthin'. The Constitution of the United State of America, is the framework of our government, and the Bill of Rights, is not a list of our rights, but a list of restrictions placed on our elected gevernment, and their employees, protecting our rights. The last four words of the Tenth Amendment, read "or to the people." The people retain power over the government. The people are the employer, and the elected government and their employees are servants of the people. Citizens and patriots, never relinquish authority nor do they surrender responsibility, for supervising the elected government, to ensure they are doing the job, they were hired to do. Citizens vote, while patriots step forward, as an employer should, when the employee needs to be shown how to do their job.

The laws written, by the legislature and approved by the esxecutive, and enforced by the justice, are from the people. The laws are guides for the effective operation of our society, follow the guides,and you stay out of trouble.

Example:
"Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers "whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977)."

Notice how the wording of the USC "authorizes state and local officers" to perform a function. It in no way prohibits the citizens from performing the same function.

As a border and protection officer, I'l assume, you had to apply for the job. In that flurry of paperwork, did you see a I-9 form, currently the DHS I-9 form?

http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-9.htm

Take the time to read page #1 Instructions carefully, then fill in section #1 and sign your name.

Next look at page #3 and see if you have any documents listed in column "A". If you have at least one document listed in column "A", STOP, you are eligible for employment, in the USA. If NO continue.

Do you have one document listed in column "B"?
If NO STOP, you are not eligible for employment in the USA.
If YES, continue to column "C".

Do you have one document listed in column "C"?
If YES, continue to column "C". Youare eleigible for employment, in the USA.
If not, then by golly, you must be an illegal alien.

Please note the following changes to the Form I-9 process:

Form I-766 (Employment Authorization Document), although not listed on the 5/31/05 version of the Form I-9, is an acceptable List A document #10.
Form I-151 is no longer an acceptable List A document #5. However, Form I-551 remains an acceptable List A document #5.
The following documents have been removed from the list of acceptable identity and work authorization documents: Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (List A #2), Certificate of Naturalization (List A #3), Unexpired Reentry Permit (List A #8) and Unexpired Refugee Travel Document (List A #9).

BR: Establishing cause for the arrest of a suspected illegal alien, is more easy than you think. I could do it to 50 illegals, in 30 minutes.

BAPH: Oh, really? Show us how it's done, then.

http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-9.htm

BR: I could effect a citizens arrest on that group, then turn them over to the custody of local police, or to the California Highway Patrol (State Police), for processing.

BAPH: And if I were the OPFOR, I would have a bunch of Latinos "troll" past you as illegals...only to produce proof of citizenship for the cops, whereupon you have an open-and-shut case of false arrest, and you will have "hugh and series" legal troubles that could very well stune your beeber.

I woould have determined they had no documnets, in step one.

BR: The laws are on my side of the argument, and I welcome MALDEF, to press a lawsuit, because, I would love to counter sue them.

BAPH: Just make sure you own or control no assets prior to doing this.

I am unemployed and I have no attachable assets.

That's it, I'm going to buy lettuce seeds, so that when the price of lettuce reaches $5 a head, I'll start growing lettuce and tomatoes.

Tell the person, "You are under citizens arrest",
take control of the person, ask the person if "they have any weapons or sharp objects on their person?
tell the person "For your safety and mine, I need to do a pat down, search".

Now, you need to take the person to or call the cops to take custody from you. A state trooper will do.

If you don't want to confront the person, then you can report him or her to the police, who will then take the person into custody.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

* 207-210 kidnapping
* 210.5 false imprisonment
* 236-237 false imprisonment and human trafficking
* 833-851 arrest
* 853.6-853.85 arrested for misdemeanor - notice to appear
* 13519.4 racial profiling


United States Attorneys' Manual
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/
1907 Title 8, U_S_C_ 1324(a) Offenses
1908 Unlawful Employment of Aliens -- Criminal Penalties
1917 Arrest, Search, and Seizure by Immigration Officers
1918 Arrest of Illegal Aliens by State and Local Officers
2056 Preparation of Witnesses Whose Testimony May Involve Classified Information

United States Code http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/
8USC1101 Foreign worker defined
8USC1304 Forms for registration and fingerprinting
8USC1306 Penalties
8USC1325 Improper entry by an alien
10USC906 Spies
18USC2381 Treason
50USC21 Enemy Aliens