Posts Tagged ‘court’

Obama Gets Away with Incredible Fraud

October 23, 2012

Well, it appears that Obama has gotten away with an incredible fraud. After dozens of lawsuits, and over $2 million later, he has managed to hold on to his presidency, in spite of passing off fraudulent documents as legitimate, such as his selective service card and his “birth certificate,” both of which came under scrutiny by computer document experts and failed to prove genuine.

Though several anomalies exist in the documents, a few noticeable ones are that the “birth certificate” comes apart in layers which a scanned document would not, the certificate number has been manipulated, the certificate has numerous typefaces which a document from a circa 1961 typewriter would not, and Obama’s father is listed as “African” instead of Negro which would not be found on a document of that era.

photo credit Irey — WND

photo credit: atlas shrugs

So far only a sheriff in Arizona has had the courage to proceed, but now it is too late; Obama’s term is almost over. The process to vet a candidate’s eligibility to be president under the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, was a total failure by both the Congress and the mainstream media. Now that they and the courts have let the country down, it is up to historians to bring out the truth, and history is likely to be harsh in judging these failures, and right it should be.

How long this may take is hard to tell, but whether a few years or several eventually the truth will come out. Perhaps in his trademark arrogance, since he was successful, he will during his lifetime release the records he has used court orders to hide from the public and keep secret, such as his school records, his college records, passport records, birth certificate, etc., though it is more likely it could be after as Obama cannot tolerate criticism of any kind.

However, the shadow this affair has thrown over the presidency may require legislation that candidates provide proof that they are eligible under the Constitution to run for the office of President of the United States, which Obama failed to do. It may also require clarification by the Supreme Court on what a “natural born” citizen is, as required by Article 1, Section 2, though the Court has previously indicated that a “natural born” citizen is one whose parents are both American citizens, which Obama’s were not since his father was a British subject from Kenya.

It would also be appropriate that those in power who were complicit in allowing an arguably ineligible fraud to assume the highest office in the land be prosecuted, starting with Nancy Pelosi and the head of the DNC in 2008 as both signed documents attesting to his eligibility to be president,  though once again this may have to wait for the judgment of history.

Hopefully, such a shameful debacle will not happened again. It sends a disturbing message that we will allow our highest laws to be skirted if it suits the purposes of those in power, like some third world country. Worse it sends the wrong message to our children and their children that we failed on our watch to uphold principles that were established in founding our nation and refused to right a grievous wrong for political expediency and political correctness. In America no one is supposed to be above the law, no one, yet we seemingly allowed an obvious, outright fraud to be  perpetrated at the highest level of our government, and those who should have at least investigated it looked the other way. Obama deserves the judgment of history, but now, so do we.

Florida Judge to Consider Obama’s Eligibility

June 1, 2012

A Florida judge has scheduled a hearing for Obama’s lawyers to explain why “natural born citizen” does not mean the child of two American citizens. Judge Terry Lewis made critical rulings during the Bush-Gore presidential election in 2000 that were eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorney Larry Klayman has brought forward a suit from a registered Democrat challenging Obama’s eligibility to be President under the Constitution’s requirement under Article 2, Section 1,  that the president be a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/bush-v-gore-judge-your-evidence-mr-obama/

As the Constitution does not explain the term “natural born” citizen, Klayman’s case cites the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett from 1875 in which the Court said that a “natural born” citizen is the offspring of parents who are both citizens of the United States. This is not the same as a “citizen” or a “native born” citizen, in which case citizenship can be conferred simply by being born in the United States. The Constitution makes a special requirement for the Office of President; both parents must be U.S. citizens.

Since it is known Obama’s father was a British subject from Kenya, there have been dozens of lawsuits filed since before he was elected challenging his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, but none of the lawsuits have had a full hearing; all have been dismissed on technicalities or put aside. This hearing is significant because it is the first time a hearing will be held on the legal definition of “natural born” citizen. If the judge holds by the decision of the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, it could bring serious reappraisal to Obama’s claim to be eligible to be President.

So far courts and judges have run from having to make a ruling on Obama’s eligibility for office. However, if Judge Lewis is not satisfied with Obama’s lawyers’ explanations and finds that Obama does not meet the requirements under the U.S. Constitution, the challenge to his eligibility may finally be heard and will undoubtably end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

1991 Literary Agent: Obama “born in Kenya”

May 17, 2012

A 1991 promotional booklet from Obama’s literary agent clearly states that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” The agency was promoting what was to be Obama’s first book, Journeys in Black and White, a effort he later abandoned. The booklet came from Acton & Dystel who was representing him at that time.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/revealed-bio-names-obamas-birthplace/

Acton and Dystel have gone their separate ways, but Dystel still lists Obama among her client list and claimed Obama was born in Kenya until 2007 when he announced his run for president. It was then changed to read “born in Hawaii.” Acton spoke with Brietbart News and confirmed the details of the listing for Obama. Dystel refused to respond to inquires about the booklet and the statements published.

Though intriguing, and yet another piece in the puzzle that is Obama, the mainstream media’s and Congress’ refusual to investigate Obama’s background and birthplace continue to create a potentially diasterous constitutional crisis.  If  it is true that Obama was born in Kenya, as the African media has long acknowledged, then he is not and never has been eligibe to be President of the United States. That would mean that everything he has done and signed while acting as President is illegal and fraudulent.

It is amazing that these questions have gone on this long without being resolved. The citizens of the United States deserve to know whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible for office or not, but he has steadfastly refused to release his personal and college information, and the “birth certificate” that was released was a poorly photoshopped creation. After this long, the consequences could be severe for America as he has relentlessly pushed his agenda on the nation. This issue needs to be settled once and for all.

AZ Cold Case Posse Investigation: Obama Birth Certificate Likely a Forgery

March 2, 2012

After a six month investigation, a cold case posse in Arizona has concluded that there is probable cause that the Obama birth certificate released by the White House last year is a forgery. In addition they have identified more than one person of interest regarding the forgery. The presentation of their evidence noted their painstaking investigation and examined the numerous inconsistancies in the “birth certificate” that prove it was a computer created document and not a scan of a real birth certificate.

The investigators also released disturbing information that claims the Hawaii Department of Health and certain elected Hawaiian officials have participated in intentially interferring with efforts to allow the original birth certificate to be examined and authenticated, if it actually exists.

The posse, made up of former law enforcement officials and lawyers with law enforcement experience, also cast doubts on the authenticity of Obama’s selective service registration as the postmark is a fake and does not match postmarks from the same era. If the birth certificate and the selective service documents are both forgeries, then there is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii nor that he is an American citizen, meaning that he is actually ineligible to be president under the regulations of the U.S. Constitution. The posse recommends that the investigation continue.

After the posse’s report, Sheriff Joe Arpaio now must decide how to proceed, but he said he thinks there needs to be a congressional investigation into the matter. However, at this point it is not clear where this evidence will go and who will continue the investigation.

“Obama Eligibility Court Case — Blow by Blow”

January 28, 2012

Obama and his lawyers were a no show at an administrative court hearing in Atlanta two days ago to determine whether he met the eligibility requirements to be a candidate for the presidency as given in the U.S. Constitution. The link below is a quick blow by blow of the proceedings and what was entered and was said in the court.

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

Though the mainstream media by and large ignored the hearing, it will be interesting to see what follows if the administrative judge deems Obama ineligible to appear on the ballot in Georgia to run for president. With the evidence given to the court, it is hard to imagine that he would qualify to be on the ballot in November. If other states follow, this could create real problems for the Democrats and Obama.

Obama Fails to Show for Eligibility Hearing

January 27, 2012
Yesterday in Atlanta an administrative law judge heard from plaintiffs claiming Obama is ineligible to appear on the ballot in Georgia because he is not a “natural born” citizen as required of a presidential candidate by the U.S. Constitution. This is the first time a court has agreed to hear evidence regarding Obama’s status as a “natural born” citizen.  Incredibly, Obama and his lawyers chose to ignore the court and did not appear at the hearing or try to deny the claim or prove that he is eligible.

photo credit: atlas shrugs

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/georgia-warns-obama-of-peril-of-ignoring-eligibility-hearing/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/georgia-court-told-obama-slam-dunk-disqualified/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/eligibility-attorney-obama-needs-impeaching/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/constitutional-expert-says-arguments-over-barack-sr-strong/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-accused-of-disrespecting-court-state-americans/

This issue has been the subject of various lawsuits since 2008 because “natural born” citizen is usually understood to mean that both parents are American citizens. Yet in his autobiography Obama acknowlegded that his father was a British citizen from Kenya. The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids presidential candidates to be foreign born or to hold dual citizenship. However, until now every single court has refused to hear evidence on the issue, usually citing some reason such as the plaintiffs lacking standing; that is until yesterday.

The court in Atlanta did not issue a judgment immediately, but by not showing, the judge is likely to declare a default judgment (meaning Obama loses by default, failure to appear), which will then be recommended to the Secretary of State who has the final say on whether or not Obama’s name will appear on the ballot. If his name is not on the ballot, he will not receive any electoral votes from Georgia. Similar lawsuits are waiting to be heard in other states within the next few months.

If these lawsuits prevail, Obama’s time in office may come to an end sooner than he would like. It’s going to get much more interesting from hereon out.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Dismisses Obama Suit

January 1, 2012

Right before Christmas, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco finally released its ruling on the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. The Court dismissed the cases and refused discovery basically saying that whereas the plantiffs might have “competitive standing” to sue, Obama’s  inauguration wiped out any claims the plaintiffs had about the election being unfair. In other words, this ruling means that once he took office, it’s too late to challenge the election whether there was fraud or not.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=380197

The plaintiffs in these cases included two 2008 presidential candidates, Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot, and one vice presidential candidate, Wiley S. Drake, plus other officials and interested parties. The judges stated in their surprising opinion that once Obama was sworn in the plaintiffs were no longer candidates, therefore their claims to an unfair election disappeared with the administration of the oath of office since the lawsuit was filed hours later, meaning too late.

Currently, the attorneys for the plaintiffs are weighing their next move, though attorney Orly Taitz has vowed to fight on until all avenues are exhausted and justice is done. So far no court in the country has agreed to hear the case on its merits and most have dismissed the dozens of cases brought forth on various technicalities, usually on the question of standing, though the Ninth Circuit may have put a crack in that claim.

It is well known that Obama’s father was a British subject from Kenya and that the U.S. Contitution does not allow dual citizenship for the office of president. A president must be a “natural born” citizen meaning both parents must be U.S. citizens. Sooner or later the Court will have to rule on the constitutionality of Obama’s presidency, hopefully before the next election.

 

“Natural Born Citizen” Requirement Explained

December 13, 2011

Constitutional law scholar and former law professor, Dr. Herbert W. Titus, has come forward to explain what the Constitution means by requiring that the President of United States must be a “natural born citizen.” Dr. Titus has degrees from Harvard and the University of Oregon, and is admitted to practice law before the U.S. Supreme Court and several appellate and district courts throughout the United States. In this brief article, Dr. Titus explains the distinction between a “natural born” citizen and a “native born” citizen, and also why the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no bearing on the issue.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=375625

photo credit — MIT

In brief, a “native born” citizen is a person who was born on American soil (which Obama may or may not have been) and a “natural born” citizen is one who was not only born on American soil, but also has two American citizens for parents (which Obama does not since his father by Obama’s own admission was a British subject from Kenya).

In addition, the 14th amendment to the Constitution granting citizenship to those born in America who previously did not have citizenship was created to grant citizenship to former slaves after the Civil War and has nothing to do with the citizenship requirements to be President. Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution is very clear in requiring the President to be a “natural born” citizen.

It is exceedingly clear that Obama does not pass the Constitutional test as a “natural born” citizen and should never have been allowed to run for President, let alone become President. It is unconscionable that the Democratic Party (which knew this beforehand), Congress, and the Electoral College allowed this miscarriage to happen. It also remains a mystery why no court in the land will take up this case and rule on it. Since Obama is planning to run again, it is imperative that this issue be legally dealt with once and for all.

Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate Recreated

October 19, 2011

Computer graphics expert Ron Pollard has succeeded in duplicating Obama’s “birth certificate” in order to show how the forgery was accomplished. Pollard spend two months deconstructing, reverse engineering, then reconstructing the PDF document the White House claims is Obama’s “birth certificate” from Hawaii. His is the latest analysis of the computer document which has been examined by over 20 computer and imaging experts, most of whom have said the birth certificate is a fake. Pollard has produced a four-part video series showing and explaining how it was done (click the first link below).

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=357621

In the second part of the report (second link) Pollard recounts what he learned in the 800 hours of  deconstructing, forensic analysis, reconstruction, and testing of the duplicate he was able to create and give his views on the forger. Among those things, he says that he believes more than one person worked on the forgery, but there was a main forger who was expert in using “Adobe software products, including Acrobat, Illustrator and Photoshop, in its production,” according to the report on WND.  Surprisingly, he also believes the anomalies in the forgery were not mistakes, but left on purpose in order to draw criticism which could be countered by Obama supporters claiming they were naturally occurring with certain software. In all, Pollard says that construction of the forgery required over 100 individual precise steps and the forger paid close attention to every detail. Still, he says, it is a forgery.

Though Pollard’s analysis and duplication of the birth certificate PDF would seem to prove that it is a forgery, so far no court has been willing to hear any case or lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility as a “natural born” citizen to be heard on the merits of the case.  Various excuses and technicalities have used to avoid dealing with the issue in a court of law, but it is hoped that eventually the truth will be heard and a judgment rendered. In the meantime, the evidence continues to mount and most of it is not going in Obama’s favor.

FEC Overrules Constitution on Citizenship … more

September 27, 2011

In an astounding ruling, the Federal Elections Commission has ruled that a “naturalized” citizen has the same standing as a “natural born” citizen. Abdul Hassan, an attorney born in Guyana, South America, and now a naturalized American citizen, convinced the FEC that to deny him the right to run for president is discrimination. The FEC agreed in that under the Federal Election Campaign Act a naturalized citizen is not prohibited from being a candidate for president.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=348933

The FEC’s ruling places the Federal Election Campaign Act above the U.S. Constitution in determining eligibility to run for President of the United States. Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly says that only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States. The Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on the definition of who is a “natural born” citizen (though historically it has been assumed to be a person whose parents are both American citizens), but it has also not ever indicated that a “naturalized” citizen is the same as a “natural born” citizen.

photo credit: atlas shrugs

The FEC’s ruling throws another wrinkle into the ongoing dispute over Obama’s eligibility to be president since his father was not an American citizen and the “birth certificate” the White House posted earlier this year has been pronounced a forgery by various computer document experts.

In another development in the continuing drama concerning Obama, a case involving former presidential candidate Alan Keyes challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president was considered by the  Supreme Court in conference on Monday.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=349217

To date the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear any of the cases challenging Obama, but attorney Gary Kreep is hopeful since his client was a presidential candidate and would presumably have “standing” to prove harm and have his case heard. A decision should be issued within a week or so.

As for a similar case that was heard some weeks ago before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, involving some of the same clients, and attorney Orly Taitz, but which also included an issue with Obama’s Social Security number being issued in Connecticut instead of Hawaii where he was from, no decision has come down yet. It is expected that when that decision comes down, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court by whichever side is ruled against.

At some point this tangled mess needs to be sorted out, but when that will be is a matter of great speculation as lawsuits have been filed challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president since before the election in 2008. So far not one case has been heard in any court based on its merits. Every court has ducked these lawsuits or passed them on. Sooner or later a trial and a ruling must be made: Is the Constitution still the supreme law of the land in the United States or not?