. . . . Back to the thread; ... see # 43.
. . . . TM, too.
Thanks, Mesta. .
Posted on 03/04/2013 5:24:01 AM PST by knarf
While researching another matter, I came across this startling bit of legality ...
There needs to be a civil or criminal court ruling against Obama for some violation of law. There has been no ruling like that.
Ten court rulings have backed up Obama on his eligibility. His attorneys can point to a growing body of precedential rulings in his favor.
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Gordon: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings:: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Voeltz v Obama (1st Ruling), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint
Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling on Reconsideration), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
*
*
. . . . Ping to # 28, # 31 , # 32.
.
# 18 is interesting, too.
.
I believe that statute of limitations for the false swearing which would give rise to a legitimate charge of fraud, has run out in Hawaii. THAT is what I have been trying to tell people since day one when polarik was running around here with his nonsense. HIS lie managed to obfuscate the entire real issue and now it’s over. obama beat it and that is why he is now so damn bold.
Home free.
. . . . Back to the thread; ... see # 43.
. . . . TM, too.
Thanks, Mesta. .
The discussion in the main note here; and most if not all of the discussion of authorities in the comments; is all addressed to procedural deficiencies with respect to an office holder--the votes were miscounted; the certificate was in the incorrect form; the residence of the individual was half a block outside the district; etc.
In normal cases, defects in the oath of office or its administration would fall in the same category--in the case of the Presidency of the United States, it probably does not for the reason that the oath is set out in the Constitution as a requisite to the office. That I think is arguable but Obama and Roberts obviously think the oath is a substantive deficiency.
Procedural deficiencies in the process are merged in the political installation procedure and do not affect the ability of the holder to execute the power of the office. There may be in some situations, legal remedies to remove an officer whose installation was procedurally defective but as these cases hold, he acts under the power of the offcie.
All of those precedural deficiency cases are distinguishable from eligibility to hold the office. There is abundent authority including the U S Supreme Court, holding that an individual who does not meet the test of eligibility to hold office who is nonetheless installed in the office is not the legal holder of the office and his acts are void ab initio.
That simple. If Zero is not a Natural Born Citizen, he is not the President. Same as if he were only 25 years old. He is just not eligibile to the office.
His purported acts of office are void. The decisions of the NLRB with his appointees are void. Action of Sotomayor and Keagan as Supreme Court Justices are void.
To be distinguished from things that have happened that do not require Presidential action. For example legislation which passed Congress and was delivered to him for approval which he in fact signed as approved: His signature is void. But, the legislation would become law without his signature even if not signed as long as it was not vetoed. (Some legislation may have been Pocket Vetoed because of the adjournment of Congress before Presidential action.)
And like Sotomayor and Kegan--they are two of four votes to hear a case before the Court; the case gets heard and decided; their participation in the acceptance of the case is procedural and the decision stands.
Distinguished from the situation where they are two votes in the majority in a 5-4 decision--the decision is voidable or void; a 5-4 decision where Sotomayor and Kegan voted on opposite sides would presumably stand. A 6-3 decision would presumably stand; a 7-2 decision would clearly stand.
I will add one other comment. As a result of the resolution of the Goldwater and George Romney eligibility disiputes, Constitutional Law doctrine is pretty well settled that the only test of Natural Born Citizenship is place of birth--a person born within the geographical confines of the several states is Natural Born; a person born without is not Natural Born.
There is no evidence of any nature that the present occupant of the White House was born in Hawaii or for that matter anywhere else. My personal speculation is that he was born outside the US but as yet, there is no evidence.
I read the Supreme Court ruling (circa 1995) on the defacto ruling about 3 years ago, and as I recall Obama would not be legal under their opinion despite what the OBots say.
And the defacto officer would not cover him for prosecution for fraud and a common con-artist.
“There is no evidence of any nature that the present occupant of the White House was born in Hawaii or for that matter anywhere else. My personal speculation is that he was born outside the US but as yet, there is no evidence.”
Federal Rules of Evidence
RULE 1005. COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO PROVE CONTENT
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
Thank you, David. Your cogent posts always are appreciated.
Except for the pronouncements by the issuing authority, the state of Hawaii, you are correct. However those pronouncements have proven difficult hurdles to overcome. Triers of Fact have accepted them as valid.
In many if not most or all of these cases where the trier of fact has accepted or failed to rule out the Hawaii Record, the substance of Plaintiff's case was addressed to the argument that zero was not Natural Born for the reason that his father was BHO Sr. who was not a US Citizen.
Since the courts involved viewed that argument as being without merit, not much attention was given to the Hawaii record factual question--no one argued that Senior was not the father; so given that Senior was the father and Plaintiff's argument was that Senior as a non-citizen father made zero ineligible, where he was born was not the issue.
And to be fair, counsel has never done a particularly adequate job of contesting the validity of the Hawaii record. We see lots of loose information here on that topic but what has been in the record in these cases is really not well done.
The Georgia ballot ALJ hearing was a particular tradigy.
The Administrative Law Judge was prepared to give the Plaintiff's a fair hearing on the record and to permit them to make a complete record. Since Zero's counsel did not appear, the record could have been made a complete record which would stand virtually unimpeachable on appeal at any level.
What should have been done was introduce an extensive record of the deficiencies in the Hawaii record making it clear that nothing in any of the Hawaii documents represents evidence that Zero was born there.
Then, hard testimony and affidavit evidence should have been introduced that has zero having told a number of people over the years that he was born in Kenya; his official biography in the early state races says he was born in Kenya. Almost all of those statements are evidentiary--they come in as exceptions to the hearsay rule as statement's against interest which are evidence that zero was born in Kenya.
At worst, in a cureative or supplemental hearing, zero would have the burden of proving where he was born. At best, you should have been able to obtain a decision based on a fact of having him born in Kenya and ineligible on the record; under circumstances where the record of his statements was birth to Stanley and Senior in Kenya, he was not even a U S Citizen at birth.
I doubt that he was in fact born in Kenya. But the point is to get a record legal proceeding on which the legal issue of his Constitutional eligibility to hold office would be before the Supreme Court on an appeal.
obama is a malignancy within the universal human body.
....
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.
...
Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like;
Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;
Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such”. [Jersey City v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 57 N.J. Super. 13, 27 (App. Div. 1959)]
__________________
Why? Why is it always about color with you?
The problem is that Hawaii accepts selfsworn affidavits for COLBs, which is how obama applied for, and received, a legal COLB from the state of Hawaii. IF soetoro adopted him, his original birth records would be sealed. BUT, his LEGAL name would have been soetoro which would mean that he lied to receive a COLB.
I also remember his saying something, either in one of his fantasy books or in one of his lying speeches, about finding his birth certificate in a drawer inside his grandmother’s Bible.
If THAT is true, it was very convenient timing that his grandmother died when she did, immediately after the Hawaiian legislature passed a statute that any personal clippings or whatever found in a dead person’s belongings, (such as a birth certificate in a Bible,) are ALSO sealed...which I found rather bizarre.
The seminal lawsuit making the “not born in Hawaii” argument was Barnett, Keyes, et.al. v Obama, et. al. That lawsuit went to the Supreme Court of the United States where it was denied a Writ of Certiorari.
Both the plaintiffs and the defense have submitted copies of the Hawaii long form in Taitz, et. al. v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, Obama, et. al.
It will be interesting to see how U.S. District Court Judge Henry Wingate ultimately rules in that case.
Actually, it is. Or one would be if they printed one at the fed. Otherwise, explain the two-dollar bill. Heh Explain the Dodge Aztek while you're at it...
Can you cite some of those cases for me? I haven't run across them in these discussions.
zero decides to go visit granny, no mention of feeling old or ill, and oops ... she died , got cremated and scattered .. all in time for zero to get back and be "elected"
“Then, hard testimony and affidavit evidence should have been introduced that has zero having told a number of people over the years that he was born in Kenya; his official biography in the early state races says he was born in Kenya. Almost all of those statements are evidentiary—they come in as exceptions to the hearsay rule as statement’s against interest which are evidence that zero was born in Kenya.”
Wouldn’t the defense respond with the various 1990 newspaper articles that say he was born in Hawaii? Or those published throughout the 1990s that say he was born in Hawaii? Or his 1995 book that says he was born in Hawaii? Or his official Illinois Senate webpage that says he was born in Hawaii? Or an affidiavit from the author of the bio, who admits she never received any information from Obama? If the defense throws in the three certified verifications from Hawaii and the fact that the Hawaii Department of Health website links directly to the White House pdf, would any judge rule in the favor of additional discovery?
I believe it was in the Grinols v. Electorial College that the judge said he considered the statements from the Hawaii DOH as credible testimony.
“The only way that Obozo is a “natural born” citizen as required under the Constitution is if his father is other than BHO, Sr.”
That would not be an issue at all if his mother and bho sr were NEVER married...which they weren’t, at least not legally, because he was already married and zero’s mother WAS an American citizen.
The ‘divorce’ was a farce. None of the legal papers were ever delivered to bho ever. She actually received a ‘legal’ divorce from someone she was never married to.
There is NOTHING with bho’s signature on it anywhere in this entire convoluted mess.
Statute Hawaii 2000
(6) A sworn certification by self-subscribing oath by the
9 candidate that the candidate qualifies under the law
10 for the office the candidate is seeking and that the
11 candidate has determined that, except for the
12 information provided by the registered voters signing
13 the nomination papers, all of the information on the
14 nomination papers is true and correct;
15 (7) A sworn certification by self-subscribing oath by a
16 party candidate that the candidate is a member of the
17 party;
18 (8) A sworn certification by self-subscribing oath, where
19 applicable, by the candidate, that the candidate has
20 complied with the provisions of article II, section 7,
21 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii;
22 (9) A sworn certification by self-subscribing oath by the
23 candidate that the candidate is in compliance with
Page 6
S.B. NO. 980
1 section 831-2, dealing with felons, and is eligible to
2 run for office; and
3 (10) The name the candidate wishes printed on the ballot and
4 the mailing address of the candidate.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.