Category Archives: Barry Soetoro

Florida 2008 election, Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Florida Election Statutes, FL Secretary of State, Kurt Browning, Contest of Election, Unsuccessful candidate, Qualified Elector, Taxpayer, Patriot call, Uphold Constitution

Posted on November 24, 2008 | 6 comments

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” —Thomas Paine 1778

Call to Patriots

Defend the US Constitution

Barack Obama, who believes that the US Constitution is outdated, has thumbed his nose at the Constitution,
and instead of providing legal proof that he is elibible to be president, engaged in legal wrangling and
diversionary tactics to avoid the issue. Obama has made it past the first hurdle, the general election. We are
now left with checks and balances provided for in the US Constitution, Federal Election law and some state
statutes.

The state of Florida has a statute provision for challenging the “certification of election or nomination of any person to office…”.

Florida Election statutes

Title IX

102.168  Contest of election.–
“(1)  Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2)  Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3)  The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b)  Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

Citizen Wells verified this statute with the office of the Secretary of State of Florida.

So, does anyone out there have the intestinal fortitude, concern over upholding and defending the US Constitution or love for this country?

Any takers for this challenge?

Perhaps Bob Barr, who ran on the Libertarian Ticket in Florida will take this challenge. Consider this video of Mr. Barr speaking about constitutional concerns:

6 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Bob Barr, Circuit Court, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Florida, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Natural Born Citizen?, Leo Donofrio explains, Donofrio lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Obama not eligible, Obama’s father Kenyan, Donofrio interprets Constitution

Posted on November 23, 2008 | 24 comments

There has been much confusion regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility and the aspect of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit that sets it apart is his claim that Obama does not meet the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. Here is an explanation from Leo Donofrio:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.

Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: 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; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President.

Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”. Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

“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.”

The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”

Follow Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit here:

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

24 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , ,

Leo Donofrio NJ lawsuit, Update November 23, 2008, US Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clerk Danny Bickell misconduct

Posted on November 23, 2008 | Leave a comment

Leo Donofrio has provided an update today, Sunday, November 23, 2008 regarding his NJ lawsuit that is before the US Supreme Court.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

“This past week, Leo C. Donofrio forwarded to the Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts an official allegation of misconduct against SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell.

United States Supreme Court docket no. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, is now “Distributed for Conference of Dec. 5th, 2008″ to the full Court meeting in private on that date. The case was the subject of previous sabotage by SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell (as well as judicial misconduct by NJ Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino). Bickell, after receiving the emergency stay application which requested extraordinary relief to stay the national election, took it upon himself to deny the application on the very time sensitive date it was filed, Nov. 3, a day before the election day popular vote.

As it stands, this case, and the Presidency, now rest in the hands of the nine Supreme Justices, a situation that could have come to pass prior to the votes being counted on election day had Mr. Bickell actually done the job he’s paid to do – be a clerk – as opposed to his specious illegal attempt to play Supreme Court Justice and overrule the long standing precedent of McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976). Please note that the link provided goes to the 5th Circuit follow up action as all links to the actual Supreme Court decision appear to have been mysteriously cut off.

Incredibly, the McCarthy v. Briscoe case provides multiple controlling precedent to the justiciability of the action now before the Supreme Court. No wonder this Supreme Court decision can’t be found online...anywhere. Hopefully, broken links to the case will be resolved as this blog makes the rounds.

The American people need to familiarize themselves with McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 (1976) (check note 1 when you find the case) in order to understand the precedent which supports the relief requested by Donofrio.

That case is relevant as to the procedural grounds Mr. Bickell incorrectly (and illegally) applied in denying to pass on Donofrio’s stay application. But more important is that the case also provides supporting precedent for Donofrio in that US Supreme Court Justice Powell, late in the 1976 Presidential cycle, intervened on behalf of 3rd party candidate Eugene McCarthy, and forced the Texas Secretary of State to include McCarthy on the ballots after McCarthy made an emergency application to the Supreme Court.

In the first count of Donofrio’s stay application, he had requested the SCOTUS remove the names of Obama and McCain from New Jersey ballots. (His second count also requested that the SCOTUS stay the national election.) McCarthy v. Briscoe stands for the precedent that the SCOTUS has the power to order a Secretary of State to include or remove names from ballots when a Constitutional issue has been invoked.

The case is also procedurally relevant because Bickell told Donofrio he didn’t submit the stay application to Justice Souter because it failed to meet the criteria of Supreme Court Rule 23.3 in that Donofrio’s NJ Supreme Court request for emergency relief used the words “injunctive relief” instead of the word “stay” and therefore Donofrio had failed to request a stay in the lower court and was not thereafter allowed to come to the US Supreme Court with such a request.

This was a disgusting attempt at one of the worst bluffs I’ve ever seen. Bickell was called with a lightning fast “all in” only to be found holding the infamous 7-2 off suit and the flop, turn and river all failed to connect with his crap holding because:

1. Donofrio did request a “stay” in his initial Appellate Division complaint. Also, the NJ Attorney General’s office argued, in their reply brief, against the court issuing a “stay”.

2. Donofrio’s NJ Supreme Court motion relied on his full lower court record when he requested a “Motion for injunctive relief” from the NJ Supreme Court by way of a signed certification and the submission of a 75 page appendix which Bickell did not have in his possession to review.

3. A stay is “injunctive relief”. Any first year law student would know that. But Mr. Bickell is a staff attorney at the United States Supreme Court. He knew damn well that the interference he ran was willfull misconduct.

4. The case has actually been distributed for conference of all nine Justices, a situation Bickell tried to prevent.

5. The case McCarthy v. Briscoe stated,

“Indeed, an application styled as one of for a stay, if it in fact seeks some form of affirmative relief, may be treated as a request for an injunction and disposed of accordingly.”

Isn’t that just amazing. Stay clerk Bickell tried to overturn historic United States Supreme Court precedent when he refused to pass on my stay application based on a false semantic attack not even grounded in law, but rather directly opposed to it. Had Bickell treated the emergency application with the dignity it deserved, the issue of whether Obama and McCain were Constitutionally eligible to be President could have been settled prior to the popular vote.

Had Bickell passed the stay application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3, Souter would have denied it straight away, as he did when it was passed on to him on Nov. 6. Then if Bickell had followed US Supreme Court Rule 22.6, which required that Donofrio be notified of the disposition of the stay application “by appropriately speedy means”, Donofrio could have renewed the application to Justice Clarence Thomas on the evening of Nov. 3, or the next morning at the latest, and the SCOTUS could have stayed the popular vote until they made a decision on the merits.

But Bickell not only failed to pass on the application, he never gave Donofrio any notice whatsoever until Donofrio finally got through to Bickell‘s phone on Nov. 6 when Bickell told Donofrio that since he – not a Supreme Court Justice – had disposed of the case, no disposition notice was necessary at all. To hell with Rule 22.6.

Now that the popular vote has been recorded, Bickell has made a difficult situation ever more dangerous as millions of citizens who voted for Obama (and McCain) stand to have their votes voided post election, a situation my law suit sought desperately to pre–empt.

Now that the case – and the issues discussed therein – have been deemed legitimate by the Court having utilized the extraordinary step (see textbook image below) of distributing for conference a previously denied stay application, Mr. Bickell’s motivations should be thoroughly investigated by the Supreme Court and also by a U.S. Attorney.

Furthermore, Mr. Bickell should be fired and “we the people” need to see that it happens fast before he has the chance to pull the same cheap bluffs on other pending emergency stay applications headed swiftly to the Supreme Court this week. You can expect a very important update on this issue within the next 24 hours.

Below is a clipped page from the ultimate SCOTUS resource text, SUPREME COURT PRACTICE, 8th Edition, page 794:

”

Read more here:

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

Leave a comment

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , ,

Leo C. Donofrio NJ lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Justice Clarence Thomas, NJ Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Judge Jack M. Sabatino, Donofrio filed Judicial Misconduct

Posted on November 22, 2008 | 20 comments

** See Update below **

I have tried to access the Leo C. Donofrio website since late last night. Lurker, a great commenter on
the Citizen Wells blog, has provided the text from Mr. donofrio’s latest post.

“Posted: Nov.21.2008 @ 6:53 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.21.2008 @ 8:25 pm
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGED AGAINST JUDGE JACK M. SABATINO IN ACTION CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2008 ELECTION.

[MEDIA UPDATE:]  Today, Leo Donofrio learned that New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino has failed to correct the public record of the initial lower court case.  Leo Donofrio feels it is imperative that he bring this battle public.  Therefore, he will appear on the Plains Radio Network with Ed Hale tonight at 9:00 PM EST.  Leo Donofrio will also appear on Overnight AM with Lan Lamphere at 11:00 PM EST as well.
Today, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the NJ Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division.  The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is now before the the United States Supreme Court, “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008″ before all nine Supreme Court Justices. 

I am very concerned that if the United States Supreme Court requests the official records of the case from the NJ Appellate Division, a fraudulent case file – not including all relevant documents – will be forwarded to the SCOTUS and thereby the case now pending might be jeopardized.

A copy of the official complaint – by way of a New Jersey Supreme Court generated form – will be uploaded to this blog shortly. ”

** UPDATE **

From Leo Donofrio:

“Yesterday, Nov. 21 2008, my previous blog – blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen – was taken down as was the entire blogtext.org network.

I have relocated here to Blogger.com. Mirror sites containing the exact content have been (or will be shortly) set up. Everybody is hereby authorized to mirror the contents of this blog. The following sites are trusted by me to have exact content”

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

20 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution

Tagged , , , , , ,

Andy Martin Hawaii lawsuit, Obama birth certificate, Judge ruling. Martin response, November 21, 2008, Update

Posted on November 21, 2008 | 37 comments

Andy Martin has just responded to the judge’s ruling on his Lawsuit, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, requesting access to Obama’s birth certificate and other records on file with the Hawaii Health Department. 

Judges ruling:

“THIS COURT TREATED THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS A MOTION SEEKING EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS

PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING TO OBTAIN THE BIRTH RECORDS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA.
 
FIRST, THE COURT POINTS OUT THAT THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SEEKS EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF.
 
IN HAWAII, A 3 PRONG TEST IS APPLIED IN DETERMINING WHETHER PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED AS

STATED IN LIFE OF THE LAND V ARIYOSHI, 59 HAW. 156 (1978). THE 3 ELEMENTS ARE:
 
1. IS THE PLAINTIFF LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS?
 
2. DOES THE BALANCE OF IRREPARABLE HARM FAVOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,

AND
 
3. DOES THE PUBLIC INTEREST SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT?
 
AFTER REVIEWING THE PLEADINGS, THE MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, THE MEMORANDA OPPOSING THE MOTION, THE EXHIBITS,

AND OTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, AND CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL AND PLAINTIFF, PRO SE, THE COURT FINDS AS

FOLLOWS:
 
BASED ON THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE COURT FINDS THAT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL

ON THE MERITS AS IT APPEARS THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE A DIRECT AND TANGIBLE INTEREST IN THE VITAL STATISTIC

RECORDS BEING SOUGHT, NAMELY THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA. PLAINTIFF ALSO DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE

CATEGORY OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE ENTITLED TO THE RECORDS AS ENUMERATED IN HRS 338-18(B). IN ADDITION, HRS 92-13

PROVIDES THAT DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS IS NOT REQUIRED WHICH, PURSUANT TO STATE LAW, ARE PROTECTED FROM

DISCLOSURE.
 
REGARDING THE SECOND ELEMENT OF IRREPARABLE HARM, THE COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE TO

THIS COURT THAT IRREPARABLE HARM WILL OCCUR IF THE RECORDS ARE NOT PROVIDED TO THE PLAINTIFF.
 
IN ADDITION, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST SUPPORTS THE GRANTING OF THE

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THERE IS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD RATHER PRESERVE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF VITAL

HEALTH RECORDS.
 
THEREFORE, THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
 
IN ADDITION, THE COURT GRANTS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE

PRIOR RULING AS WELL AS FOR THE REASONS RAISED IN THE MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDA, INCLUDING LACK OF STANDING

AND INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE DEFENDANTS.
 
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE ORDER.”

Andy Martin’s response:

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
 
INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN PLANS TO APPEAL DISMISSAL OF BARACK OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE LAWSUIT, SAYS HE HAS NOT YET RECEIVED A COPY
 
MARTIN SAYS JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFLECTS “CALLOUS DISREGARD” FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
 
(NEW YORK)(November 21, 2008)  For those of you who are not familiar with the peculiar highways and byways of the judicial process, welcome to the strange ways of the court system in Hawai’i. Apparently my lawsuit in a Honolulu state court has been dismissed.
 
Unfortunately, I have not seen a copy of the decision. Despite the significance of the court order, I was not given a courtesy notice when it was entered in Honolulu, apparently late Wednesday, although I was in Honolulu all day on Wednesday.
 
Thursday all day I was traveling back to New York and was unavailable. I did not get back to New York until 8:00 A.M. Friday.
 
I was alerted by a reader’s e-mail that something had happened, and went to the Honolulu Advertiser’s web site where I found a complete story, http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081121/NEWS20/811210355/1001/localnewsfront.
 
Obviously I was unable to respond to phone calls while in the air, and when I checked my e-mails today the Advertiser reporter had not left a phone number to call him back.
 
The Court did not fax my office a copy and so I have no immediate way of seeing a copy of the decision. I assume the Advertiser’s news report is a fair summary of the decision.
 
Depending on what the response is to a fund appeal, I will certainly appeal this decision to the Hawai’i Intermediate Court of Appeals. The trial court’s interpretation of the relevant statute appears to be a wooden reading of the law. The claim that there is a lack of historical significance to the birth certificate of a president of the United States is a classic example of how utter nonsense can exist in the judicial system.
 
I will solicit input from my audience as to whether they feel that pursuit of the appeal is a worthwhile venture and will proceed accordingly.
 
I understand how 150 million Americans are frustrated by the callous disregard which the court system has shown for access to vital, basic information about Barack Obama, the “mystery man” who has been elected president by the “Mainstream Media of the United States.”
 
However other than this mild criticism, I believe it is more appropriate to proceed through the judicial process, and that is the course I intend to follow on the issue of access to Barack Obama’s original, typewritten 1961 original birth certificate.”

Read more from Andy Martin here:

http://ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

37 Comments

Posted in Andy Martin, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , ,

Electoral College facts, Obama not eligible, Electors must vote per US Constitution, Faithless Electors, Federal Election Laws, State Laws, Elector pledges, States and Electors must uphold US Constitution

Posted on November 21, 2008 | 17 comments

“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” — Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas, voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Electoral College must be maintained

We must adhere to spirit and intent of law

The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two primary goals.

  • To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from being dominated by a few larger states with
    higher population densities.
  • To prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed populace.

I have been wading through the quagmire of the election process and in particular, the Electoral College
vote and state laws that control the election process through the Electors voting. Some aspects are
crystal clear. The US Constitution reveals the eligibility requirements for president, the responsibility
of the federal and state governments and how the electors must vote. The individual states have the
power of controlling general election ballots and orchestrating the selection, meeting and votes of the
Electoral College Electors. There is much confusion however, regarding the duties and powers of state
election officials to ensure the qualifications of candidates and in states’ power to control the way
Electors vote.

Here are the laws and facts regarding the pivotal point in the election process, the Vote by the Electoral College Electors:

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“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.”

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law: 

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

From US National Archives

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.”

List of Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges, as of November 2000
Source:  Congressional Research Service

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA – 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE – 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA – 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO – 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS – 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA – 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA – 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY – 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA – 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA – 10 Electoral Votes
 MISSOURI – 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE – 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY – 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK – 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA – 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND – 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE – 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS – 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH – 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA – 5 Electoral Votes
 
Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA – 9 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2
ALASKA – 3 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA – 55 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 6906
COLORADO – 9 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT – 7 Electoral Votes
State Law § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – 3 Electoral Votes
DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA – 27 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1)
HAWAII – 4 Electoral Votes
State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE – 4 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 805
MARYLAND – 10 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS – 12 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN – 17 Electoral Votes
State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
MISSISSIPPI – 6 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – §13-25-104
NEBRASKA – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 32-714
NEVADA – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 298.050
NEW MEXICO – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA – 15 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO – 20 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA – 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON – 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA – 8 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA – 13 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON – 11 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN – 10 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 7.75
WYOMING – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

So called “Faithless Electors”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”

Source:

http://votenovember2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-electoral-college-works.html

 

So, we have a situation where electors are referred to as “faithless” for not following the party line
or state mandate. However, the state mandates are unconstitutional. There is no such mandate from the
US Constitution or Federal Election Law. On the contrary, Electors are bound to vote in the manner defined
in the US Constitution. Following a political party or state mandate when confronted by serious concerns
regarding a presidential candidate’s eligibility, clearly violates the spirit of the law. The individual
states have the power over candidates being placed on and remaining on ballots. If they are to dictate
the manner in which Electors vote, they must exercise their powers and demand proof of eligibility
to prevent violations of constitutional law and potential voter disenfranchisement.

Let’s consider a comment from an Indiana Elector and Indiana law.

“Good Morning CW, I sent an email to all of the Electorals in Indiana asking them to support the Constitution requirements for President. This is what I received back, “Brenda I don’t represent you. I do however represent the people who voted for President Elect Barack Obama in the state of Indiana. Anthe the State did go from Red to Blue, did it not? Any think you have to further communicate with me is of no interest. Please refrain.” Cordelia Lewis-Burks. Then the next e-mail sent a picture of all the Presidents of the United States with the caption, One thing has changed” because it had Obama’s picture added. How do you get people like this to even question his qualifications? They do not care. All they care about is the fact that he is part black. By the way, this lady is black. I also have a question–why doesn’t she represent me? She is just an electoral, and I am a citizen of Indiana and the United States. Any suggestions ? Thanks. Brenda”

Electors pledge to a political party to vote for parties candidate. This is another example of party over country. The DNC did not vet Obama and now expect Electors to blindly follow.

The Indiana Elector in the above comment has pledged to the Democrat Party to vote for their candidate. I wonder if the Elector is aware of their duty to vote in the manner directed by the US Constitution. The Elector has been made aware of the eligibility issue with Barack Obama. Ignorance is not bliss. If the electors in Indiana are not made aware of their responsibilities and Obama being ineligible, then their Electoral votes must be challenged in Congress. 

Indiana Law from the Secretary of State

“After election day, each county sends its presidential vote totals to the Secretary of State in Indianapolis. It can take several weeks after the election for the final version of all these county returns to arrive. When all the county votes have been received (and any errors or omissions corrected), the Secretary of State certifies to the Governor the final, official returns for the presidential elector candidates.

The Governor then signs a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” This document officially appoints the winning presidential electors to serve as Indiana’s members of the Electoral College. Three copies of this document are immediately sent to the National Archives in Washington.”
“After an invocation and any welcoming remarks by state officials, the Certificate of Ascertainment and the roll call of the electors are read. The electors who are present then take their oath of office.”

“The presidential electors then vote for President on a paper ballot. The ballots are tabulated and the results announced. The electors then cast a separate paper ballot for Vice-President, and the result of this voting is announced. The electors then sign a Certificate that sets forth the votes each Presidential candidate and Vice-Presidential candidate received, and a transmittal cover sheet.”
INDIANA ELECTORAL COLLEGE FACTS

“Indiana has never had a “faithless” elector. Each individual has voted for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to whom they were pledged.”

Source:

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/voters/electors_new.html

It is obvious that we must do the following:

  • Inform Electoral College Electors, State Election Officials and congressmen of the Obama ineligibility
    issues and their duty to uphold the law and serve the citizens.
  • Educate Electors on their constitutional duty and priorities.
  • Demand that State election officials require proof of eligibility of Barack Obama and any other presidential candidates.
  • Hold all accountable.
  • However, even though some Electors have been complicit with the DNC in not vetting Obama, not all are guilty of dubious actions and all should be addressed with the proper respect.

17 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Crime, Declaration of Independence, Democrat delegate, democratic convention, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Philip J Berg lawsuit appeal, US Supreme Court, Update, November 19, 2008, Mr. Berg provides update, FEC waiver, Justice Souter ruling?

Posted on November 19, 2008 | 15 comments

Jeff Schreiber spoke to Philip J Berg after the FEC filed a waiver of right to respond. Here are some exerpts
from Jeff Schreiber’s report:

“According to the Docket No. 08-570 at the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Election Commission yesterday filed a waiver of its right to respond to attorney Philip Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed on October 31 and currently pending before the Court.

Contrary to Internet rumor that Justice Souter had ordered Barack Obama to provide the vault copy of his birth certificate, the Court merely set December 1, 2008 as the date by which the respondents–Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission–were to respond to Berg’s petition if they chose to do so at all. Yesterday’s filing, which appeared on the docket this afternoon, shows that the respondents have waived their right to respond.”

“This distinction is not lost on Philip Berg.

“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg said. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.”

“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

Indeed, neither the DNC nor the president-elect are, for now, federal respondents, though Obama’s status as Illinois senator–a position from which he resigned this past weekend–could place him under the representational umbrella of the Justice Department.”

“While outright collusion could be a stretch, if indeed the FEC’s attorney is acting on behalf of all respondents and not just the FEC, there certainly is the appearance of coordination. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations put forth against Barack Obama, for the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of the United States to be facilitating a defense which is calculated to shield from disclosure, rather than compel disclosure, of manifestly relevant and critical information bearing directly upon not just the qualifications but the very constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama — the word “unorthodox” comes to mind. As does “shameful.” And yet, in these post-election times, especially considering the FEC’s decision not to audit Obama’s $600 million take during his campaign (at least $63 million of which was from undisclosed sources), this appears to be the new standard in post-election times.”

Read more of the article here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Help Philip J Berg defend the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

15 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Jeff Schreiber, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Obama is not eligible, Virginia Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Circuit Court, Richmond Virginia, Judge Walter W. Stout III, Court ruling, Wild Bill, VA Board of Elections, Obama camp fraud?, Breaking News **

Posted on November 19, 2008 | 22 comments

Another Obama Camp scam?

When I first read about the Virginia lawsuit claiming Obama is ineligible and the subsequent ruling by
the judge, it did not smell right. I have reread the exerpts placed on the internet and after much thought
and deciding that I had to read the Petition and the judges ruling, I searched for a record of the filing
and hearing on the official Virginia Courts website. I did extensive searching by names and dates and
found nothing. After much searching, I called the clerk of court’s office. I was told that several people
had called inquiring about the case and they could find no record of any case.

Internet accounts of alleged Petition and judge ruling

So, who is Wild Bill?

“Great News
written by Wild Bill, October 22, 2008

The Virginia lawsuit (actually a Petition for Writ of Mandamus) was filed today. Ironically, we almost missed filing and serving due to the thousands of people downtown today to see Obama speak. In even better news, the Honorable Walter W. Stout III, the chief judge, granted our motion for an emergency hearing and set a briefing schedule. We were required to serve the Board of Elections a copy of the schedule today (which we did). We must file our brief and all supporting evidence on Friday. The Board of Elections has until the 28th to file a response.

We may file a reply on the 29th and the hearing will be held on the 30th at 1:30p.m.
We did send copies of the suit and orders to the local media, but unlike some people, we are more interested in pursuing the legal battle, not whoring ourselves out to the media. For that same reason we are not setting up a website or soliciting donations.
We will let you know how things progress.”

Found here:

http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice

So, where did this come from?

“Virginia State Court Dismisses Action Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to be President
The November 03, 2008 regarding the Virginia State Court Dismissal Action Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to be President is not the result of a conspiracy, nor is it the result of a biased or unprincipled judge. I would hope all patriotic Americans would feel the same way and avoid making unfounded scurrilous remarks about the judge or the judicial system. (ObamaCrimes.com)

Review:

There are two parts – first the response on the State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president, second the issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship.

[Part 1: State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president] With respect to the first part, the judge noted that in a presidential election, unlike any other election, the electorate votes for a slate of electors, not directly for the presidential candidates. The judge noted that there is no question that all of the proposed VA electors are qualified to hold that position (a position we never contested). The judge recognized the problem with this is that perhaps there is no entity that is responsible for vetting the presidential candidates. Some on this site have argued that the DNC is responsible for vetting their candidates. There is no legal support for that argument. The judge held that the Constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate are to be determined solely by the congress in session when the electoral votes are cast.

The court cited Federal legislation further details the process for counting electoral votes in Congress. 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15, which directs that Congress shall be in session on the appropriate day to count the electoral votes, with the President of the Senate presiding. It directs that designated individuals shall open, count and record the electoral votes, and then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved:

“[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

Thus the court denied the motion for a writ of mandamaus and dismissed the petition.

As I mentioned earlier, this was the argument that I think the State had the best chance on and it strikes me as correct. Much as the membership of the Senate is controlled by the senate (see, e.g. the senator Stevens discussion), the constitution places the power to determine presidential eligibility on the congress.

Based on this, our real battle should be to contact our representatives and senators and make certain that an objection is brought at the time of the counting of the electoral votes. Remember, this will be the new congress, so wait until Wednesday when you know who your new representatives and senators are.

The Court could have ended there, but it went beyond this initial holding and addressed our other arguments (this is not uncommon – just as lawyers often make alternate arguments, courts regularly provide alternate holdings in case one is rejected).

[Part 2: issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship]

The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic. The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth.

The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen. The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.””

And what prompted Lan Lamphere to state the following?

“There is no need to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama.  No court will ever hear it and no committee will ever act on it even if it was won.” – Lan Lamphere

Found here:

http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/14/virginia-state-court-dismisses-action-challenging-obamas-eligibility-to-be-president/

If this is not another attempt by the Obama camp to shore up credibility and discredit those such as Philip J Berg, please respond with proof to the contrary.

Also, anyone affiliated with Circuit Court Judge Walter W. Stout III in Richmond Virginia, we would love to get a response from you.

** UPDATE **

I Just found this on

http://americamustknow.com/virginiacase.aspx

“Message:
RE: WILD BILL CASE

I too believe that this case is a “fake case” based on the following:

1. I conducted multiple searches for the case at http://wasdmz2.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/circuit.html — Using a variety of names, including Board of Elections, Elections, Election, etc. — and no case was reported.

2. I contacted Judge Stout’s Office (the judge in the case, per Wild Bill. (Info at http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/circuit/Richmond/home.html). The clerk there could find no record of the case in the docket.

3. I contacted two local Richmond newspapers, with all the info available. There was no subsequent report on the case. Given that at least local news has reported on all similar cases, I find it very hard to believe that local Richmond news would not report on such a substantial opinion.

============
While you and I may have drawn different conclusions about the “facts,” I believe that we both seek the truth and, therefore, provide this research – which you can verify yourself – for your consideration.”

22 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Internet, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, VA lawsuit, Virginia, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Leo C. Donofrio NJ lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Update November 18, 2008, Obama not eligible

Posted on November 18, 2008 | 23 comments

Below is an update on the Leo C. Donofrio NJ lawsuit that states that Obama is ineligible to be president. The lawsuit is currently appealed before the US Supreme Court:

“Applicant, Leo C. Donofrio, submitted a renewed application for emergency stay of the ’08 national election to The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas on Nov. 14, 2008 by US Postal Express Mail which was delivered at 7:46 AM, Nov. 17, 2008.

The renewed application hit the US Supreme Court on-line docket search engine sometime between noon and 2:15 PM today, Nov. 18, 2008.  Below is a copy of the docket:

_________________________________________________________________

No. 08A407
Title:
Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant
v.
Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey
  Case Nos.: (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Leo C. Donofrio P.O. Box 93
East Brunswick, NJ  08816
Party name: Leo C. Donofrio”

Read more here:

http://blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

23 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , ,

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Washington Times Ad, US Supreme Court appeal, Obama not eligible, US Constitution must be upheld, November 17, 2008

Posted on November 18, 2008 | 23 comments

The Philip J Berg lawsuit that states that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president is still before the
Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Berg and many citizens insist that we uphold the US Constitution.
Mr. Berg has an ad in the Washington Times for Monday, November 17, 2008.

bergad

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

23 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , ,