From: http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-defining-citizen-vs-natural.html
Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
Bump so that I can find this again. I read elsewhere that Leo Donofrio is going to stop posting about this issue while he pursues another avenue. He didn’t explain. He did say that it appears that the Founding Fathers and Natural Born Citizen and the Constitution have been thrown under the bus (my words).
Well, when I, an American citizen wishing to caste a ballot, got to the ballot box, I didnt vote for Barry Dunham-Soetoro, Alias Barak Hussein Obama because I questioned his eligibility. I decided that he was not eligible, and therefore I voted against Barry Dunham-Soetoro, Alias Barak Hussein Obama because he was ineligible to be president of the United States...
There that takes care of that...
I say Barry Dunham-Soetoro, Alias Barak Hussein Obamahe is not eligible to be president of the United States...
I was checking to to see if you had found anything out! I was hoping that Orly would post something about this on her site but I have not come across anything yet!
There has been no news from Judge Carter.
Well Guys Look what I just found over at the obama file! I am in tears!
Carter Caves
“Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 29, 2009”
It looks like the Judge has been had. He granted the motion to dismiss the suit against Obama, stating that over 69 million people wanted the Obamamessiah and he wouldn’t overthrow him. In saying so, he is also saying that The Constitution is no longer in effect — and he used a bogus Constitutional argument to do it.
“Plaintiffs request asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders.”
What Carter said:
• It’s OK to ignore Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution.
• Votes trump the U. S. Constitution.
• The U. S. Constitution does not allow the judicial branch to interfere in a coup d’etat.
The fix was in. Velamoor probably brought Judge Carter’s ruling with him from Perkins Coie.
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
BARNETT v OBAMA Motion for Reconsideration
If anybody is still on this thread....does this argument have validity? Found this on another site and figured if anybody could flush this angle out, it would be the Freepers.
America, We the People have Weapons!
U.S.C. Title 44, Chapter 22: “PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS”
Why haven’t any of you used the simple power of the United States Code mandates that are directly on point??
Like, as in, uhm?.. U.S.C. Title 44, Chapter 22: “PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS“
[Thank veteran Congress members for passing the Presidential Records Act of 1978]
The statutory law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple ways, that:
a) the AG *cannot* represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the *prosecuting* side against Obama, if the AG is involved, at all… In fact, whether intentional or not, Obama and Holder can be hit with “constructive fraud”, at the very least…
b) the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either… Again, whether intentional or not, you have that “constructive fraud” against the rule of law thing again…
c) there are various statutory standings provided for even “mere” individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.
d) Obama’s “Presidential records” are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of simple written law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in any citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7+ million spent so far… plus interest and penalties, naturally… plus, getting deported, or imprisoned, or whatever else…).
e) additionally, there are all sorts of various federal agencies/heads to statutorily go after Obama’s eligibility through.
I have detailed and provided the direct links to all of these applicable federal statutes, below.
Of course, we all know that Obama and his agents have fully admitted his dual-citizenship at birth, which precludes him from ever being President, even notwithstanding the obviously-suspicious concealment of virtually all pertinent records…
Who, then, are the lawful United States Prez and VP, per the original Constitution, right now, at this
very moment??
That’s easy enough to answer:
1. Mr. John McCain, Republican, *is* the President, temporarily, until the Re-Election that must be done, promptly.
2. Mr Ralph Nader, Independent, *is* the Vice-President, temporarily, until the Re-Election that must be done, promptly.
(and, those two are not my personal combo pick, but that IS the result of law per the original Constitution, so fine…).
Oh, and no worries about any “vacuum of power” anxiousness, because of this proposed new Joint Cabinet to be used during the temporary period, accepting this well-balanced set of American leaders (yes, every person listed is eligible and legally qualified to hold the position indicated - you better believe I double-checked that, first…):
http://www.editgrid.com/user/indianacrc/newJointCabinet
America needs officials that actually have skill and talent, as our Cabinet - not always a bunch of political flunkies. Further, I have balanced the new proposed Cabinet as 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Rep, and 1/3 all other legally-”major” parties, also indicated an increase in the number of resulting women upon the President’s Cabinet, and additionally sought more harmonious balance within religious and ideological characteristics of the group of officials, plus added geographical and age diversity into the mix, so as to well-represent the vast majority of America, as the temporary power *within* the White House… you see.
NOTICE RE: MDL CONSOLIDATION OF “OBAMA ELIGIBILITY” CASES:
Since, even after allowing an entire year now since the fraudulent 2008 General Election, it STILL seems that nobody is able to get actually serious enough to throw a flagrantly-obvious impostor/usurper out of office, in using the court system and the laws already in force, it seems there’s no choice but to soon enter into each of your own respective cases, immediately move to consolidate them all together under MDL (federal Multi-District Litigation), and maybe also bump it up into a huge mass-action or class-action suit, allowing for each and every U.S. Citizen, Taxpayer, Voter and Landowner to be able to self-join/self-intervene by geography (i.e., by jurisdiction), using simple checkbox “legal standing” forms made available online, and then self-filed per each of their own respective Divisional courthouses. And, I just happen to have a nationwide network of 3200+ online groups (for every single State, County, Parish, Borough and Independent City across the whole country) to actually do it, if really needed… That is, unless I can finally see some serious progress made *by the others leading* in these various “NObama” impostor/usurper cases still active in any court, and that good progress implemented in the most urgently quick and direct fashion, by using any or all of the legal info/ammo provided below.
APPLICABLE STATUTES RE: OBAMA’S “PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS”:
Let’s start out with THE most basic/direct way to end all of this nonsense, once and for all, ok???
A simple review of United States Code, Title 44, Chapter 22: “Presidential Records”, provides what is needed.
Title 44, CHAPTER 22 — PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sup_01_44_10_22...
§ 2201. Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002201—-000-.html
i.e., Obama’s “Presidential records”, including all *Constitutional* and similar official documentation, are expressly NOT protected to any forms of privacy or concealment allowed, like his “personal records” are allowed to be..
and, indeed, since the United States now actually OWNS those same “Presidential records”, and not Obama!, see
§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002202—-000-.html
then the United States has NO possible legitimate reason, whatsoever!, to withhold documentation - from ITSELF, hint, hint - of the question of existence, or not, of the properly authenticated qualifications of Mr. Obama, et al… i.e., of it’s own “CEO”… No, the “shareholders” of America are absolutely entitled to see authentication, proven and confirmed.
IN FACT, it is actually Obama’s **STATUTORY DUTY** to ensure his “Presidential records” are made public…!!!
§ 2203. Management and custody of Presidential records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002203—-000-.html
and, to the point necessary:
§ 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002204—-000-.html
paragraph (c)(1) of which provides that those “Presidential records”, i.e., THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND ANY OTHER SUCH ”QUALIFICATIONS” DOCUMENTATION, “shall” be made public, pursuant to
Title 5, § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552—-000-.html
Sooo.. merely use the existing jurisdiction of your current “eligibility” case, to subpoena the relevant collection of “Presidential records” from the Archivist and/or National Archives and Records Administration, pursuant to
§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002205—-000-.html
under paragraph (2)(A) thereof, and, VOILA! Case closed, slam-dunk, Obama IS done. Over and out. The end.
(and Mr. McCain and Mr. Nader take over White House power until the Re-Election is held promptly thereafter, as acting President and acting Vice-President, per the original selection process order under the original Constitutional design, as the Presidential vote-getters # 2 and # 3 behind invalid Obama, who is not a natural born Citizen, “failed to qualify”, etc.)
For further pertinent records handling info, see also:
CHAPTER 29—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY THE ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES AND BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sup_01_44_10_29...
and
CHAPTER 31—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sup_01_44_10_31...
REGARDING CONSTANT FAILURES VIA “STANDING” ISSUES:
Also, after all of these many cases **continually dismissed** for ONE recurring issue - i.e., STANDING TO SUE - I am simply a-m-a-z-e-d that none of the present cases, with maybe the exception of Donofrio, and that only to a limited degree, have even remotely-adequately addressed any of several available, concrete-solid standing postures of virtually any U.S. Citizen, eligible Voter, Taxpayer, Landowner, or the like. The wide range of standing postures at option includes all manner of first-person, second-person, and third-party standing scenario availabilities. Here, for those of you that wish to learn about LEGAL STANDING, are just several online options, of many out there, to begin with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=www.findlaw....
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing
http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/standing
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/563064/standing-to-sue
http://www.answers.com/topic/standing-to-sue
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ... (i.e., “the Government ADMITS…”)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-StandingToSue.html
Sooo, as merely a FEW examples, only, there are easy, straightforward uses of either vertical and/or horizontal ‘privity’ for bulletproof standing, due to the running of Hillary Clinton, Dr. Keyes, and etc. against Mr. Obama for the same position – i.e., “Berg ex rel. Clinton v. Obama, et al.” or “Taitz ex rel. Keyes v. Obama, et al.“ - so as to not even be requiring the person of interest to be the petitioning party, in the first place… let alone the power of using the direct petitioning parties, themselves, if using ADEQUATE standing authorities… written into play… Then, there’s an entire myriad of standing options under compelling various federal officers to do THEIR duty to investigate Obama’s qualifications, see even the multiple *statutory* standings provided below. There’s also other legal relational standings, like fiduciary duties of one person/entity to another.. hint, hint.. And, there were/are plenty of other solid, indisputable, and basic foundations for full legal standing for use in play, including, but not limited to, arguments under and via ‘collateral contract’, ‘trusts’, ‘agency’, and the ‘assignment of contractual rights.’ And, again, there’s the direct legal standings of voters, taxpayers, and each Citizen… the KEY is all is well as long as the proper amount of binding authority is finally brought into written play, first! There is *overwhelming* authority on establishing *all kinds* of standing, so what IS the problem so far in sadly systemic, routine failures by “eligibility” Plaintiffs to adequately address the wide variety of indisputable STANDING authorities???
Heck, I, as a mere Citizen, have full standing by my own Citizenship, and its attributes of voting, paying taxes, Obama’s and/or the Fed’s and State’s fiduciary duties to me, and also as a landowner, if I owned land at the moment.. Moreover, I have standing, again, but in the second/third-person, as “ex rel” on behalf of any other Citizen, to protect his or her Rights and Interests, as their “next friend”, and the same “ex rel” on behalf of any part of Government towards another part, etc…
Remember, you are guaranteed a “remedy” for a wrong, Constitutionally… Gad-zoinks people!!!, even also under the Federal Constitution, there is *explicit* Citizen standing already provided. See Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1… cf. Amendments 9 & 10… see also Art. IV, Sec. 4, first participle/clause. You can also achieve citizen standing through being denied the right to a *meaningful* vote, and therefore making challenge under Amendment XIV, Section 2 (to compel changing the local basis of representation, duh, even if that is not your *primary* goal.. hint, hint..). Now then, go back and read the end of that First Amendment again..
But, enough about the utter joke of standing.. The following list is a selection of MANY statutory ways to throw Obama “out da house”, quickly. Please now implement and use at least SOME of them in your own cases, right away, so that I can get back to preparing other key God, Country, and Family issues (SepChurchState, Creation-Evolution, ElectionFraud, Economy/SocialPrograms, FedRsrv/GoldStd/Dollar, rebalance of power, individual liberties, limited government, etc.), for their actual restorations, via a brand new kind of huge federal legal challenge, to get us back at least close to the Framers’ original Constitutional design and intent, as soon as it is possible for one poor man to get it all frickin’ done, and done right.
Yeah, that’s right. I have chosen to live near poverty for years now, fighting part-time or more for restoration of America.
If you like my help, I could sure use donations, left side on http://unitedcivilrights.org, to upgrade to full-time restoration.
EXISTING STATUTES PROVIDE VARIOUS ROUTES TO OBAMA:
Indeed, a simple once-through, of every possibly-relevant Title of the entire United States Code, looking for the “potentials”, reveals at least a few dozen more direct ways to go after Obama, reveals that AG Eric Holder and his U.S. Attorneys are in **multiple statutory DIRECT conflicts-of-interest** by representing Obama, over citizenship questions, instead of representing the *express* interests of the United States and its several by-statute agencies/departments to the direct contrary of Obama’s legal interests, and even reveals that “AG-Elect” Eric Holder could now be removed from office, for merely participating on the wrong side in Obama’s citizenship problems… In other words, get rid of Holder & U.S. Attys OUT of these “eligibility” cases, immediately, since you now have, below, the clear-cut, mandate power of law to do so!
from United States Code, TITLE 2, The Congress:
–> example - go after Obama’s *Senator* records from the 2004 Illinois election, to check eligibilities…
§ 1a. Election to be certified by governor
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000001—a000-.html
§ 1b. Countersignature of certificate of election
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000001—b000-.html
but see, for “devil’s advocate” knowledge,
§ 118. Actions against officers for official acts
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000118—-000-.html
yet, not to worry!, because the special circumstance is Obama being a U.S. Senator, and under
§ 118a. Officers of Senate
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000118—a000-.html
section 118 actually doesn’t apply to Obama, so no representation/defense by AG Eric Holder or his US Attorneys…
and besides, the Senate and Senators have their own *statutory* representation, anyway:
§ 288. Office of Senate Legal Counsel
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288—-000-.html
see also
§ 288c. Defending the Senate, committee, subcommittee, member, officer, or employee of Senate
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288—c000-.html
…but, most definitely, the AG (nor his staff, the U.S. Attorneys…) *cannot* represent either the U.S. Senate, former Speaker Cheney, current Speaker Pelosi, Reid, or etc., when it comes to the question of citizenship/qualification of Obama as President-Elect, but the representation *must* be ONLY the Senate Legal Counsel, for any/all of them… because of:
§ 288h. Defense of certain constitutional powers
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288—h000-.html
and, also because of:
§ 288k. Attorney General relieved of responsibility
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288—k000-.html
and, also because the AG’s direct conflict-of-interest is inherent in challenging Obama’s citizenship, see, e.g.:
Title 8, § 1501. Certificate of diplomatic or consular officer of United States as to loss of American nationality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001501—-000-.html
Also under Title 2 of the United States Code, please take note of federal statutes concerning the FEC.
Title 2, § 437c. Federal Election Commission
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000437—c000-.html
(b) Administration, enforcement, and formulation of policy; exclusive jurisdiction of civil enforcement; Congressional authorities or functions with respect to elections for Federal office
(1) The Commission shall administer, seek to obtain compliance with, and formulate policy with respect to, this Act and chapter 95 and chapter 96 of title 26. The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of such provisions.
** whereas that same Chapter 95 of Title 26 referenced above includes/specifies:
** when referring to aspects of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, including eligibilities…
§ 9011. Judicial review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00009011—-000-.html
** which gets most any INDIVIDUAL PERSON the right of STANDING to go after Obama, via paragraph:
(b) Suits to implement chapter
(1) The Commission, the national committee of any political party, and individuals eligible to vote for President are authorized to institute such actions, including actions for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief, as may be appropriate to implement or contrue [1] any provisions of this chapter.
** while back in Title 2, re: the FEC itself, there is ALSO express/specific judicial review available again to “any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President”…:
§ 437h. Judicial review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000437—h000-.html
soooo, there is more than one way of obtaining *statutory standing* to sue Obama, et al… and there are others, too…
The creative legal mind can certainly leverage this statute against Obama, somehow, hint, hint:
Title 2, § 441h. Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000441—h000-.html
Continuing with remaining Title 2 potentials, believe it or not (and, it figures…), there is nothing very useful under here, as they obviously didn’t want themselves really held accountable in any meaningful manner, if they could avoid it, duh..:
Title 2, CHAPTER 24 — CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_24....
SUBCHAPTER IV—ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE-RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_24_...
so, skip all of that, except make a mental note that Congress has “unlawfully” shielded themselves from judicial accountability?
from United States Code, TITLE 3, The President:
§ 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000015—-000-.html
like stated in Constitution, objections to electoral vote must be called for by the Speaker
likewise, either Biden, and/or Pelosi, God forbid, can be compelled under 28 USC 1361 to “qualify” Obama and themselves:
§ 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000019—-000-.html
another statutory parallel to the Constitutional provisions
from United States Code, TITLE 5, Government Organization and Employees:
Even MORE legal authority to leverage/expose Obama through the FEC, via Title 5 of the United States Code, as to otherwise judicially compelling ALL OTHER duties of the FEC to be manifested into reality, including eligibilities…
Title 5, CHAPTER 7 - JUDICIAL REVIEW in general
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sup_01_5_10_I_3...
§ 701. Application; definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000701—-000-.html
i.e., the FEC is *not* listed as an excluded “agency” to judicial review
and confirm also via:
§ 702. Right of review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000702—-000-.html
which includes rights of *individuals eligible to vote for President* to sue in federal court, i.e., STATUTORY STANDING
and, while the available scope of review for the federal court used is quite wide and grand, indeed, *constitutionally*:
§ 706. Scope of review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000706—-000-.html
Then, there’s also going through the angle of the federal Office of Personnel Management
§ 1103. Functions of the Director
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001103—-000-.html
i.e., to judicially compel, by 28 USC 1361 federal officer duty mandate (see Title 28 below), the Director of OPM to “qualify” Obama as a bona fide qualified federal employee, i.e., as a bona fide U.S. Citizen, etc.
i.e., as in their statutory duty to ensure Obama’s “loyalty” to the USA…
§ 1304. Loyalty investigations
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001304—-000-.html
Then, as to compelling the various Secretaries of State (in the various different sister States) to “ensure validity” of Obama’s qualifications and eligibility, those such Plaintiffs can maybe use:
§ 1502. Influencing elections; taking part in political campaigns; prohibitions; exceptions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001502—-000-.html
particulary paragraph (a)(1) and maybe also (a)(2) thereof
Heck, also under Title 5, you could use the compelling of the Merit Systems Protection Board, in the same way as compelling the Director of OPM above, pursuant to
§ 1505. Hearings; adjudications; notice of determinations
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001505—-000-.html
and under paragraph (2) thereof, to have Obama removed from office…
which would be agency whitewashed, of course, so then you have statutory right to judicial review, thereafter
§ 1508. Judicial review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001508—-000-.html
Also under Title 5 of the United States Code are other commanding “loyalty” statutes, such as
§ 3333. Employee affidavit; loyalty and striking (think: “withholding Presidential records”) against the Government
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00003333—-000-.html
and by following through to the referenced statute therein:
§ 7311. Loyalty and striking
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00007311—-000-.html
“An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;”
i.e., we find that Obama is *affirmatively* violating paragraph (1) above, every day, as long as he refuses or “fails to qualify” as Prez under the Constitutional manner dictated, refuses to “make public” his “Presidential records” as per law, etc…
from United States Code, TITLE 8, Aliens and Nationality:
regarding defining a U.S. “national” or U.S. “citizen”
***OLDER
in general:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sup_01_8_10_11....
a couple of specifics worth tracing through the Library of Congress:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000601—-000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000801—-000-.html
***NEWER
in general:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_...
a few specifics usable thereunder are:
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
§ 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001408—-000-.html
§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001481—-000-.html
§ 1488. Nationality lost solely from performance of acts or fulfillment of conditions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001488—-000-.html
You could/can compel the Sec of Homeland Security’s duties (again, under 28 USC 1361 mandate) to investigate Obama’s citizenship
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001103—-000-.html
(which also, again, shows the inherent conflict-of-interest with the AG representing/defending Obama’s citizenship issue)
AND/OR
you could/can compel the Sec of State (Hillary) to do the same thing, i.e., investigate Obama’s citizenship
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001104—-000-.html
which also, by the way, adds a nice touch of direct conflict-of-interests into the game
see also:
§ 1227. Deportable aliens
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001227—-000-.html
(multiple angles of attack v. Obama herein, see *especially* (a)(3)(D) thereunder)
(again, showing inherent conflict-of-interest in the AG defending Obama’s citizenship issues..)
Maybe a clever Plaintiff party could leverage this statute into deciding the eligibility issue from another angle:
§ 1501. Certificate of diplomatic or consular officer of United States as to loss of American nationality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001501—-000-.html
see also:
§ 1642. Verification of eligibility for Federal public benefits
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001642—-000-.html
Obama’s various federal benefits, i.e., wages, medical, pension, etc., cannot be received by any “alien”
“proof of citizenship” required under (a)(2) thereunder, but admittedly maybe a stretch to implement…
also, add any federal benefits being received by Michelle Obama, and by his two daughters, even?…
see also:
§ 1644. Communication between State and local government agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Service
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001644—-000-.html
from United States Code, TITLE 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure:
Oh, on that many inherent conflicts-of-interest by the Atty Gen in representing Obama over citizenship issues?
So, after knowing the above statutes that specify when and when not, then see:
§ 528. Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000528—-000-.html
(throw the bum, “AG-elect” Eric Holder, OUT OF OFFICE!)
see also:
§ 530B. Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000530—B000-.html
see also:
§ 547. Duties (of all of the U.S. attorneys)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000547—-000-.html
and, see also (kewl!):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000591—-000-.html
Referenced several times above, can be used against Obama, or ANY other federal official…
§ 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001361—-000-.html
And, don’t ever forget about the awesome power and flexibility of seeking any kind of WRIT:
§ 1651. Writs
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001651—-000-.html
from United States Code, TITLE 42, The Public Health and Welfare:
a little bit of creative thinking, or “connecting the dots”, can be leveraged with:
§ 1971. Voting rights
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001971—-000-.html
then also, why not go after Obama’s OWN (Chicago/Illinois) vote being unlawful (as an illegal alien, false citizenship, etc.), via:
§ 1973i. Prohibited acts
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001973—i000-.html
see especially paragraphs (c) and (d) thereunder, like CONCEALING MATERIAL RECORDS!!!
see also, and *think* while reviewing:
§ 1973gg–9. Civil enforcement and private right of action
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001973–gg009-.html
(to ensure “statutory standing” due to the *private right of action*…)
and likewise regarding Obama’s continued concealment of records, but used under his OWN voting qualifications in Chicago, in both 2004 and 2008:
§ 1974a. Theft, destruction, concealment, mutilation, or alteration of records or papers; penalties
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001974—a000-.html
and the procedure to implement (hint, use “ex rel State of Illinois”?)
§ 1974b. Demand for records or papers by Attorney General or representative; statement of basis and purpose
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001974—b000-.html
and, so, of course, the jurisdictional hook:
§ 1974d. Jurisdiction to compel production of records or papers
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001974—d000-.html
While, all sorts of different “teams” and “organizations” including Obama in them can be arranged/claimed/accused under
§ 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001985—-000-.html
especially paragraph (3) thereunder..
AND which therefore gives another *original jurisdiction* to the federal court under:
Title 28, § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001343—-000-.html
along with the obligatory Section 1983 civil rights claims, of course…
from United States Code, TITLE 44, Public Printing and Documents:
includes the mandates regarding all “Presidential Records” - see all info/ammo at very top.
from United States Code, TITLE 50, War and National Defense:
Can we spell all of the different names of the “radicals” associated with Obama, both prior and present, stir in a little Acorn soup, allege the basic, obvious facts on paper, and leverage this, even? The skilled legal practioner can surely do it:
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV — COMMUNIST CONTROL
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_23...
And, just for good measure, everything you wanted to know about the new Presidential declaration of National Emergency regarding the swine flu, or H1N1 derivative, and including how and when to terminate any national emergency:
CHAPTER 34 — NATIONAL EMERGENCIES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_34...
________________________________________
Heck, people, all of that is JUST from pouring through ONLY the entire United States Code (USC). What if someone took the time to sift through *the entire* Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), maybe research the available Secret Service documentation, manuals, and etc., or the same sets of endless rules and regulations from other relevant federal agencies/departments? What if Obama is breaking the law - again - every time he flies out of the country, and then “tries to re-enter” our Nation? Do you get the point? The age-old adage is that “no man is above the law”, and, yet, people think the cliche is true, that high government officers can merely *get away* with acting like they are “above the law” - yet, I tell you the simple truth: the higher a government official is in rank, the more and more rules, regulations, laws and other authorities that exist in relation to their position, and they have, effectively, even more and more “leashes” snaring them down.. watching their every move. Indeed, I would call Obama the man who is “most UNDER the law” in America, actually… every Presidential candidate must be *necessarily* prepared to accept that role for his or her entire term of office… to be the most-leashed public servant that there is… to be subject to intense scrutiny… and, via ‘on paper’, i.e., accountable to the greatest amount and numbers of variously written laws…
The point is, Patriots of the United States of America, that there are various EASY and COMMANDING ways, already in full force of law, with which to obtain the “eligibility” records sought, or to find no sufficient records exist, and bring an end to this utter nonsense of a circus, if only a **comprehensive** review of the matters be done and actually implemented.
REPEAT OF SUMMARY:
The law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple times and multiple ways, that:
a) the AG *cannot* represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his nationality/citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the *prosecuting* side against Obama, if the AG is involved at all…
b) the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either…
c) there are various statutory standings provided for even “mere” individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.
d) Obama’s “Presidential records” are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7 million spent so far… plus interest and penalties).
e) additionally, there are all sorts of federal agencies/heads to go after Obama’s eligibility through, by statutes.
ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES & ARGUMENTS:
Lastly, let me also point out and ardently remind of these important items to consider into the mix:
1) - Clinton was held in contempt by a federal court, while he was still the President, ergo, jurisdiction exists:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5671/Contempt-Contempt-Proceedings-again...
(See also, most especially, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Jenness v. Fortson, Bush v. Gore, Kawakita v. U.S., U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, U.S. v. Rhodes, and Scheuer v. Rhodes [a different ”Rhodes” case, unrelated], all from SCOTUS)
2) - Congress, itself, routinely turns to the judiciary to resolve issues, even to sue the President:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr050199.htm
3) - EVERY President is sued in order to compel official duties, all the dang time, by business, individuals, and even other government and quasi-government entities. Just one example out of literally thousands:
http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2008/0868-bush_lawsuit-080717-b.pdf
and go look at the online dockets and archived opinions of the various federal court types physically located in DC…
4) - Heck, it’s even “ok” to actually sue the White House Executives for scandalous allegations of outright fraud:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/10/usa.dickcheney
5) - You have to remember/realize the REASON *why* Obama goes around hiding/concealing records… because that is exactly what he has been taught from birth to do… His mother obviously embroiled herself into some sort of “bend rules” stuff over Barry’s birth, somehow, and necessarily with someone else.. and HAD to later tell her son at least *something* about his unusual citizenship situation, at some time in his life. Further, with all the moving around the world (her work and etc.), especially to and through countries that were NOT being friendly with the United States, he was also taught through childhood NOT to have too much respect for the United States, or its culture and society… That’s the kind of friends and others who Obama hung around with quite often during his formative childhood, teenage, and young adult years. Also, of course, all that passing through various nations in political turmoils might typically require travelers to forge and fake documents and statements, just to avoid delays and problems.. And, later, for Barry to take a new muslim/african name while living in the United States, in order to demonstrate to his similar-thinking friends his “independence” and “repugnance” of the “establishment” level of the same United States. And, momma was right there, the whole time while Obama grew up, “explaining” away the “shortcuts” that they needed to take, just to get around and survive sometimes… teaching him, by example, to do the same thing as “needed”… Probably helping little Barry fill out student loan paperwork, too, as he prepared to enter his first college or university, right?? Is Obama hiding something in his various records? Oh, that’s a given, easily. Nationality/citizenship is surely not the only thing being concealed. He very likely has taken all sorts of federal financial benefits, student and/or small business loans, congressional perks, and/or now presidential stuff, that he wouldn’t even otherwise be regularly qualified for, in the first place, let alone the impostor citizen status to complicate things even that much further. Sure, he is also a Constitutional scholar himself, also taught to remember that there was the opportunity of better weath and life in America, that country he was likely daily taught to otherwise despise, but he was surely taught, and taught often, to “bend the rules” on nationality/citizenship paperwork as needed… Want confirmation? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham and there Obama’s quote about his mother, who was: “the dominant figure in my formative years… The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics.“ Oh, yeah, I am confident he is hiding more than just mere citizenship issues… And, by the way, from recent story developments, it could actually be that little Barry’s mother was NOT married to his father, at all. Could it actually be that, maybe, just maybe, Ms. Dunham was *also not* a bona fide citizen of the United States, either???
6) - Mr. Berg, Dr. Taitz, and Mr. Apuzzo, especially, but along with all other plaintiffs/counsel, would do well to consider the ramifications - and power - of the first two paragraphs, paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(2), here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001491—-000-.html
7) - Sooo, what?? You get Obama thrown out of office… NOW what? What THEN? WHO becomes the next President? The answer, again, is very simple: Per the original Constitution, Mr. John McCain IS the *temporary* President, and Mr. Ralph Nader IS the *temporary* Vice-President, while a proper Re-Election is done promptly, say within 120 to 180 days of new campaigning time period allowed from date of judicial ruling, using ***distinct*** voting/balloting for the offices of President and Vice-President, and *only* those all same 2008 Prez and VP candidates run again, if they so choose to do again, but the mandatory result of the true Constitutional law and design is that you almost certainly end up with one (1) White House Executive from EACH/BOTH of the top two political parties, i.e., most likely either McCain as Prez with Hillary as Vice-Prez, or the reverse, Hillary as Prez with McCain as Vice-Prez, because of simple mathematics and the Constitutional selection process involved, i.e., the top two political strengths/parties each get one of the top two Executive positions, President and Vice-President. That’s pre-12th Amendment, like it *should be* still done. But, even after the 12th Amendment (1804-1805, enacted-ratified), the campaign law hasn’t been followed correctly since the 1870s, and the “newer” opportunity of “running for” Vice-President is **supposed** to be ran for independently from the balloting/voting process of the candidates for President. So, in the current state of things, the Re-Election of 2008, done under present (don’t strike down the) 12th Amendment rule, we must end up with ONE of the Presidential candidates, and ONE of the Vice-Presidential candidates, but NOT necessarily, and NOT even probably or likely, being of the *same* party. In other words, under the current law in place for 200+ years, and that was suddenly ceased to be followed during the 1870s, we should have had 2008 results like: Obama/Palin, Hillary/Palin, McCain/Biden, Baldwin/Palin, Nader/Biden, or etc. - any Prez candidate that wins Prez + any Vice-Prez candidate that wins the SEPARATELY DONE race for the Vice-Presidency… Or, again, what’s even easier.. simply go back to pre-12th Amendment, like it should best be done anyway (strike the 12th Amend. down), and you have no race for VP, at all, itself, but the two top Prez candidates become 1st (Prez) and 2nd (Vice-Prez) in number of votes obtained. Simple. Balanced. Elegant. It’s *supposed* to always be a Joint Administration (politically) in the White House, anyway. And, that law and design and intent always was followed, too, until the 1870s… when the new mega-wealth “barons” and “tycoons” entered onto the American scene through vast new enterprises in railroads, steel, telegraphs, newspapers, etc., and began to *really* take over, in bending and stretching the political process to suit their own desires. Those damn Banksters… greed, the oldest sin of all..
But then, the Word of God - twice - clearly reminds the inescapable truth:
“You cannot serve both God and Mammon.”
And, it also clearly reminds: “My people perish for lack of knowledge.”
Points proven for God’s Word, as always being solid truth and wisdom, once again…
CALL TO ACTION:
Especially to Mr. Apuzzo and Dr. Taitz, in respective timeline order: Regardless of filing appeal to your Circuit, you should certainly — certainly (is everybody watching them??) — incorporate some of the above, and file your immediate motions for reconsideration, based on newly discovered authority, etc. Mr. Apuzzo has until this coming Wednesday, November 4th to file any motion for alteration of judgment (Dismissal entered 10/21/09, ten (10) “business” days, per FRCP Rule 6(a)(2)), to file motion under FRCP Rule 59), while Dr. Taitz has the same ten business days allotted since Judge Carter’s ruling was entered, and she can also slap that traitor Judge Land back with a Rule 60(b) motion, because - omg!! - even *thinking* about any *sanctions* during a *political question* case violates everything known to man… hint, hint… let alone the fact that Judge Land was outLANDish and wrong, in the first place. The above statutes under U.S. Code prove it.
To all “Obama eligibility” Plaintiffs/Counsel: Please now implement the above clear mandates of federal statutory law, and thereby take away all further notions of “discretion”, “doctrine”, or any other interference or delay. Command your victory. There is absolutely NO legally plausible **excuse** for Obama violating his statutory duties to make his “Presidential records” made ALL and immediately public domain. Period. End of story. Sooo, bye-bye, Mr. Obama, ‘et al.’
To all “NObama” - “End The Fed” - “Go Sarah” - “Hillary” - and other supporters: Please forward out widely to all available forums/groups/etc., at least the basic “hammers” above, especially the legal mandate of Obama’s “Presidential records” being made full public items for inspection/review. It is actually YOUR tireless communications/distribution work that actually gets the hooks baited, fish caught, cleaned, cooked and eaten tonight for supper. Thank you.
Yeah, that’s right. I have chosen to live near poverty for years now, fighting part-time or more for restoration of America.
If you like my help, I could sure use donations, left side PayPal on http://unitedcivilrights.org, to upgrade to full-time restoration work. That would help a whole lot to get this all done, and America back on a good Constitutional course.
That way, instead of having to spend large chunks of my time working on people’s individual due process and other cases out there, I could focus on nothing but restoring America’s Constitutional Heritage through various legal HAMMERS actually implemented, sooner………………………….
Thanks!
Sincerest Regards,
——————————————
Mr. Torm Howse
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Instructor,
United Civil Rights Councils of America
http://unitedcivilrights.org
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Trustee,
Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - US
http://paao-us.com
Founder, Owner, President,
The FIDO Network
http://fidonetwork.com
General Contact:
P.O. Box 68665
Indianapolis, Indiana 46268
(317) 286-2538 office (888) 738-4643 fax
indianacrc@earthlink.net
Increase Your FAITH!
Subject: U.S.C. Title 44, Chapter 22: “PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS”
Hey NautiNurse:
Start here and read all the way back through the posts.
Have fun.
"MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: taking under advisement 90 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set December 7, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. is removed from the calendar. Parties will be served with the Courts ruling. (ade) (Entered: 11/30/2009)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23398098/Minutes-in-Chambers-Order-by-Judge-David-o-Carter
For documents file in the motion for #90, see here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22341216/BARNETT-v-OBAMA-Motion-for-Reconsideration
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22341242/BARNETT-v-OBAMA-Taitz-Declaration
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22341261/BARNETT-v-OBAMA-Coroner-Report-Sinclair-Affidavit
Translation?
“My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts”.
Hope not...
Hope not as well, but your probably right.
"FOIA request for Stanley Ann Dunham requested from Homeland Security"
~~PING!
Thanks for the pings.
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.
