Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ed Hale got the divorcee decree of Dunham vs Obama Sr.
Plains Radio ^ | 1/2/09 | Patriot08

Posted on 01/02/2009 1:16:10 PM PST by patriot08

Ed Hale of Plains Radio has secured a copy of the Dunham/Obama divorce decree as promised. He has registered this at the courthouse and has turned the document over to lawyers who are reported to be happy and enthused over the contents.

This is the first page. This is all that can be divulged at this time as those who have seen the decree are sworn to silence. You may hear information about it tonight on Ed's plainsradio show.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anyminute; bho2008; birthcertificate; birthplace; certifigate; divorce; dunham; obama; obamafamily; obamatruthfile; realsoonnow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,661-1,6801,681-1,7001,701-1,720 ... 1,941-1,945 next last
To: patriot08

Can we make bets on that?


1,681 posted on 01/18/2009 3:15:34 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1680 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

Thanks for the ping.


1,682 posted on 01/18/2009 3:17:21 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1680 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

Thanks for the link but alas I have a small laptop with terrible sound and an inability to access such a link. In other words I am definitely earless, but at least I don’t have any viruses and spyware has been cleaned out for another 3 days. Searching so much sure collects the spyware! BTW I forgot to mention earlier that one of Ann’s former high school classmates may still live in the Seattle area but was planning on voting Repub.


1,683 posted on 01/18/2009 3:56:44 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1679 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Just passing along the word from the chat room


1,684 posted on 01/18/2009 5:52:58 PM PST by patriot08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1681 | View Replies]

To: All

Something about BO’s SS no 759 is Washington based..could have established his citizenship as late as 2005


1,685 posted on 01/18/2009 6:22:42 PM PST by patriot08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1652 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

Ping me with anything more, if you don’t mind.


1,686 posted on 01/18/2009 6:38:21 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

DC or WA state?


1,687 posted on 01/18/2009 8:12:57 PM PST by mojitojoe ( A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

DC, I think


1,688 posted on 01/18/2009 8:23:36 PM PST by patriot08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1687 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

2005? I find that hard to believe. He never had a ss# prior to that? If that turns out to be true then something is very, very wrong here.


1,689 posted on 01/18/2009 8:33:17 PM PST by mojitojoe ( A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

Something about BO’s SS no 759 is Washington based..could have established his citizenship as late as 2005

You’re going to have to fill me in on this. Surely he had to have a SS# prior to that. He was a lawyer. He has some other jobs. He had to have that to work. This makes no sense and sounds like someone got some bad info perhaps?
Now nobody wants this poser to get caught more than I do, but this latest makes no sense.


1,690 posted on 01/18/2009 8:36:19 PM PST by mojitojoe ( A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: patriot08
Something about BO’s SS no 759 is Washington based..could have established his citizenship as late as 2005

759 ??? Per usrecordsearch.com numbers 729-799 are unassigned, for future use. That info could be dated and they have since been assigned.

http://www.usrecordsearch.com/ssn.htm

1,691 posted on 01/18/2009 9:25:56 PM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: patriot08
Also from the usrecordsearch.com site:

Any SSN conforming to one of the following criteria is an invalid number:

1. Any field all zeroes (no field of zeroes is ever assigned).
2. First three digits above 740

Strange?

1,692 posted on 01/18/2009 9:32:23 PM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: patriot08
D.C. is 577 to 579:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm

1,693 posted on 01/18/2009 9:43:59 PM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1688 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Chief Engineer; Fred Nerks; Kevmo; hoosiermama; Polarik; pissant; Beckwith

.

Anybody got a clue as what to this could be about?

“Dr Mike Ritz,State Congressman from OK..and Patriot, called the Ed Hale Show tonight! I was on and listening...
he asked that any federal employee to please call Ed Hale or Caren at Plains (806.447.0270)..they will be put in contact with Congressman Mike Ritz! He would not give any info out except that this was urgent..that the executive order issued by President Bush..
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090116-1.html Friday Jan. 16th gave an opening to pin Obama with information they have but it can only be accessed by a federal employee and it needs to be accomplished by 11:59 am EST, on Tue. Jan. 20 because 5 min after taking office Obama will revoke it! This is urgent..anyone that knows a federal employee that will help or is a federal employee willing to stop Obama..please call Ed or Caren at Plains Radio and they will put you in touch With Congressman Mike Ritz...806.447.0270!”
[End Quote]
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2088

I know the representative called in. I was listening and he’s been on the show many times.
.


1,694 posted on 01/19/2009 2:42:21 PM PST by patriot08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1693 | View Replies]

To: patriot08; LucyT; Iowan; Fred Nerks
Here's to what Ed Hale, Orly Taitz, and everyone else should be paying attention:

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 2, 2001] [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January 2, 2001 and January 28, 2002] [CITE: 18USC1001]

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to--

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104-292, Sec. 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459.)

I mean, how much louder do I have to scream about Obama's fradulent statements and actions regarding his birth certificate before someone in our Government actually listens and does something about it?


1,695 posted on 01/19/2009 3:03:39 PM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1694 | View Replies]

To: patriot08; LucyT; et al
This is the complete rule description to which Bush's EC applies. I seriously doubt that "exempt federal positions" include a US Senator and a US President, but the "Positions of Public Trust," definition might.

A federal employee would only know what this means if that employee works in the Office of Personnel Management

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Personnel Management Office CFR Citation: 5 CFR Part 731 NOTICE: RULES DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Suitability

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: In order to limit duplication of efforts by applying reciprocity where appropriate to the investigative and adjudicative processes, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is modifying regulations governing Federal employment suitability. The final regulations establish the requirements for applying reciprocity to Federal employment suitability determinations and investigations.

SUMMARY: Suitability,

On June 23, 2008, OPM published at 73 FR 35358 (2008) proposed amendments to the regulations in part 731 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), to require, with limited exceptions, the application of reciprocity in any case where the person previously was investigated at a level that meets or exceeds that required for the new position, was determined suitable under 5 CFR part 731 or fit based on character or conduct criteria equivalent to the suitability factors of 5 CFR 731.202, and meets continuous service requirements described in the regulations. The public comment period on the proposed amendments ended on August 22, 2008. OPM received comments from two Federal agencies or departments, one union, and two individuals. OPM has carefully considered the comments received. Subsequent to publication of the proposed regulations, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13467 (June 30, 2008), which established a governance structure to improve Executive branch policies and procedures regarding various background investigations and adjudications. Section 2.1(c) of E.O. 13467 requires that except as otherwise authorized by law, background investigations and adjudications shall be mutually and reciprocally accepted by all agencies. The E.O. requires that, with respect to suitability, agencies may not establish additional investigative or adjudicative requirements without the approval of the Suitability Executive Agent, and such approval shall be limited to circumstances where additional requirements are necessary to address significant needs unique to the agency involved or to protect national security. Section 2.3(b) of the E.O. provides that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall serve as the Suitability Executive Agent. The exceptions to reciprocity provided in these regulations are consistent with these provisions.

Reciprocity of Background Investigations

One commenter opposed accepting background checks on contractor employees who have had their background investigations conducted by their employing company. The commenter believes that the Federal suitability process involves more scrutiny and a private company's background checks may not involve the same extensive checks as does the Federal suitability process. The proposed regulation only applies where a Federal agency has previously determined the contract employee was fit to perform work on the contract based on criteria equivalent to the factors provided at 5 CFR 731.202. There is no requirement or expectation
[[Page 66490]]
that reciprocity would be granted to investigations or fitness determinations made by private companies on their own employees.

One commenter raised a concern regarding granting reciprocity to a previous investigation and favorable suitability determination without the ability to check whether the individual has performed any acts that might exclude them from employment subsequent to this prior investigation. This commenter raises the example of a person who is arrested for criminal misconduct a year or two subsequent to an investigation and favorable suitability determination by a Federal agency. The commenter argues that when that person applies for employment with a second agency, under the proposed regulations, unless the second agency is aware of the intervening misconduct, it must grant reciprocity to the earlier investigation and favorable suitability determination. In response, we note that the proposed regulations do not change the existing rules governing how the misconduct in the example is identified and addressed. Both under current regulations at 5 CFR 731.104(a)(6) and proposed regulations at 5 CFR 731.104(a)(2), the person in the example would not be subject to a new suitability investigation. Absent a change in risk level, misconduct by an employee subsequent to an investigation and favorable suitability determination can and should be addressed under adverse action procedures provided at 5 CFR part 752. This is true regardless of whether the employee has several years of service with the same agency or has recently transferred to a new agency. There are a variety of ways in which such misconduct can be identified and addressed, including by review of a newlyobtained Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form 306.

A related question raised by the same commenter noted that while under the proposed regulations a person will be subject to a new investigation if ``an agency obtains new information that calls into question the person's suitability,'' nowhere does the proposed regulation define or explain how an agency ``obtains new information.'' There are a variety of ways by which new information might be obtained. As explained in the supplementary materials to the proposed regulations, new information might be obtained from a newlyexecuted Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form 306. Other sources include responses to questions raised during employment interviews or during reference checks.

One commenter asked whether the intent of Sec. 731.104(d) is to exclude public trust positions from the new reciprocity requirements. This is not the intent of this section. This section has been modified to clarify that the provisions in Sec. 731.104, setting out limitations on when an appointment is subject to a new investigation, do not negate agencies' ability to conduct reinvestigations for public trust positions under other authority as described in Sec. 731.106.

Another commenter stated that there is no means to challenge a decision by OPM or an agency that a new investigation or suitability determination is required because a prior fitness determination was not based on criteria substantially equivalent to the factors provided at 5 CFR 731.202. This commenter urged that such decision be subject to review by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or alternatively, by OPM. OPM notes that any suitability action taken based on a new investigation, such as removal, cancellation of eligibility, or debarment, may be appealed to MSPB under Sec. 731.501. Furthermore, creation of new appeal or review rights is outside the scope of this regulation and will not be further addressed here.

Investigation Requirements for Position Risk Level Changes

One commenter pointed out that Sec. 731.106(c)(2) refers to ``investigative types'' in reference to 5 CFR 732.202 when that regulation instead uses the term ``investigative requirements.'' We have changed the language in Sec. 731.106(c)(2) to ``investigative requirements'' to be consistent with 5 CFR part 732.

Another comment concerned the meaning of Sec. 731.106(e), which provides when the risk level of a position is changed to a higher level or an employee experiences a change to a position with a higher risk level, he or she can remain in that position pending any upgrade in the investigation required. The commenter stated that it was unclear whether it is the original or new position in which the person could remain. This section was modified in the proposed regulations to clarify that the movement to the higher risk position is not limited to promotion but may include reassignment or even demotion. The modification does not otherwise change the meaning of the section. Thus, as is the case under the current regulations, a person may remain in his or her current position if the risk level for that position changes to a higher level, and may encumber any new position to which he or she moved even if that position has a higher risk level than his or her previous position. In either case, any upgrade in investigation required for the new risk level should be initiated within 14 calendar days. If the results of the upgraded investigation warranted action such as removal, that removal would be from the new higher risk level position.

One commenter noted that the OPM issuances referenced in Sec. 731.106(c)(2) are limited to official use only and are not made available to the public. This commenter stated that in the absence of being able to review those issuances, it is impossible to provide comments on Sec. 731.106(c)(2). The very limited modification proposed in Sec. 731.106(c)(2) simply reflects the existing relationship between position risk determination under part 731 and the position sensitivity determinations made under 5 CFR part 732 when identifying the appropriate level of investigation needed for a particular position. It makes no substantive change in the regulatory requirement. This commenter questioned the relationship between risk designation and sensitivity designation and asked for an explanation of a position's sensitivity designation on the nature and content of a suitability investigation. They noted that in Executive Order 13467 (June 30, 2008), the President directed that investigative standards for security clearance and suitability investigations be aligned, to the extent possible. They expressed concern that an investigation designed to determine a public trust employee's suitability may be inappropriately broadened to include lines of investigation appropriate only in a security investigation under part 732. As stated in current regulation at Sec. 731.101(a), suitability determinations made under part 731 are ``distinct'' from determinations of eligibility for assignment to, or retention in, sensitive national security positions. Although the President has directed agencies to ensure that investigative standards for security clearance and suitability investigations are aligned to avoid duplicative steps, the purpose and basis of the two
determinations remain distinct and nothing in the proposed regulations changes that distinction.

Reciprocity of Suitability Determinations

One commenter urged that a definition of ``core duties'' be provided and stated that in the absence of a definition, each agency would be required to define and ``codify'' the core duties for their organization. Another commenter on this section recommended that OPM define core duties to narrowly limit the exception provided at Sec. 731.202(d) and that OPM
[[Page 66491]]
review all agency definitions of their core duties and the types of conduct alleged to be incompatible with those duties. Specifically, they urged that any incompatibility with core duties generally be limited to a statutory or regulatory bar such as the legal barrier to the employment of a person with a record of domestic abuse in a gun carrying position.

Whether an individual's prior conduct is incompatible with the core duties of a position is inherently a casebycase determination focused not only on the unique duties of the specific position, but also on the specific nature of the prior conduct. Incompatibility is not limited to instances where employment would violate a statutory or regulatory bar but could extend to conduct which clearly is antithetical to the key responsibilities of the new position. For example, prior conduct involving financial fraud may be antithetical to the duties of a bank examiner and, as discussed in the supplementary materials to the proposed regulations, prior criminal misconduct may be antithetical to the duties of a law enforcement official. Core duties will vary from agency to agency and from position to position, and the identification of core duties is properly within the discretion of individual agencies. We do not believe that OPM review of agency identification of core duties and incompatible conduct is appropriate. However, we agree that a general definition of ``core duty'' would assure more consistent application of the exception provided at Sec. 731.202(d). Accordingly, we have added a definition of ``core duty.''

This commenter further recommended that an agency decision under Sec. 731.202(d) that a person's investigative record on file shows conduct that is incompatible with the core duties of the relevant covered position be subject to review by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or, alternatively, by OPM. OPM notes that any action taken based on a negative suitability determination, such as removal, cancellation of eligibility, or debarment, may be appealed to the MSPB under Sec. 731.501. Furthermore, creation of new appeal or review rights is outside the scope of this regulation and will not be further addressed here.

One commenter asked whether a suitability action must be based on specific factors listed at Sec. 731.202 or whether such an action can be based on criteria equivalent to those suitability factors. The proposed regulations provide that reciprocity shall be granted a previous investigation and favorable suitability determination based on criteria equivalent to the suitability factors listed at Sec. 731.202 as long as the individual meets the continuous service requirement. However, the requirement stated in Sec. 731.202(b) that any suitability action must be based on the factors listed at Sec. 731.202(b) remains unchanged. This same commenter questioned the legal justification for investigative inquiry into such matters as the grounds for a person's divorce, personal finances, or foreign travel and asks about the relationship of such matters to the factors listed at Sec. 731.202(b). These questions will not be addressed here as they concern the factors listed at Sec. 731.202(b) which are outside the scope of the proposed regulation.

Reporting of Suitability Determinations

One commenter urged that a statement be added to the regulation to make it clear that an agency will not be held to reciprocity if the prior investigation was not reported to OPM. This same commenter also raised questions about the nature and detail of investigative results to be reported and also expressed concern regarding how quickly the new agency would be able to obtain information regarding any prior investigation, suitability determination, and suitability action. Even if information regarding a prior investigation and adjudication has not yet been reported to OPM, agencies must follow the reciprocity requirements of these regulations. If the information regarding a prior investigation and adjudication is not in OPM's database or is insufficient to make a reciprocity decision, agencies should contact the former or current employing agency to obtain the necessary information to either grant or deny reciprocity consistent with these regulations. If after contacting the former or current employing agency, an agency is unable to determine the investigation on file is at the appropriate level or confirm that the other requirements for reciprocity apply, then necessarily no reciprocity may be granted. For these reasons, we believe the recommended statement is neither appropriate nor necessary.

Miscellaneous Comments

One commenter recommended changing the provisions governing appeals of suitability actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). They recommended that MSPB be authorized to issue summary judgment without a hearing where the MSPB administrative judge finds there are no material facts in dispute or genuine issues of credibility. We will take this suggestion under advisement for future consideration but it is outside the scope of the current proposed regulation and therefore has not been considered.

Another commenter questioned whether an installation can pass over a selected candidate and proceed to the next preferred candidate when the results of the preliminary suitability determination reveal disqualifying information. Nothing in the proposed regulations alters agency obligations under law to follow proper pass over procedures.

One commenter urged that suitability standards ``currently under development'' be issued prior to the implementation of these proposed regulations. The suitability factors referenced in the proposed regulations are at 5 CFR 731.202 and are not under development. This same commenter also recommended that appropriate training be provided to all deciding officials, in advance of the implementation of these regulations, so as to ensure the consistency of determinations. Agencies having delegated suitability adjudication authority have been required to use the suitability factors for at least 20 years and agency staff should be well trained in their application.

One commenter stated that language in the supplementary material to the proposed regulations concerning coverage appears inconsistent with the actual regulations. Specifically, the supplementary states that ``any proposed changes to these regulations apply only to persons that are in, or in the process of moving into, the competitive service or career Senior Executive Service'' and the regulatory language refers to ``covered positions,'' a term which is defined in the current regulations (final regulations effective June 16, 2008). We agree that there may be some confusion since, under the most recent final regulations, the coverage of part 731 was modified to include certain positions in the excepted service. To clarify, the proposed regulations will apply to persons who are in, or in the process of moving to, a covered position as defined at Sec. 731.101(b).

Technical Amendments

OPM has made a technical amendment to the Authorities for this part to reflect the President's signing of Executive Order 13467 on June 30, 2008, which designates the OPM Director as Suitability Executive Agent. [[Page 66492]]

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review

The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed the final rule in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect Federal agencies, employees, and applicants only.

E.O. 13132

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

E.O. 12988Civil Justice Reform

This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private section, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Congressional Review Act

This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization, and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties and, accordingly, is not a ``rule'' as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 731

Administrative practices and procedures, Government employees. Office of Personnel Management.
Michael W. Hager,
Acting Director.
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 731 as follows:
PART 731SUITABILITY
Subpart AScope
1. The authority citation for part 731 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 7301; E.O. 10577, E.O. 13467, 3 CFR, 19541958 Comp., p. 218, as amended, 5 CFR, parts 1, 2 and 5. 2. In Sec. 731.101, amend paragraph (b) by adding a new definition for the term ``Core Duty'' to read as follows:
Sec. 731.101 Purpose.
* * * * *

(b) * * *

Core Duty means a continuing responsibility that is of particular importance to the relevant covered position or the achievement of an agency's mission.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 731.104, revise paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) and add new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 731.104 Appointments subject to investigation.
(a) To establish a person's suitability for employment, appointments to covered positions identified in Sec. 731.101 require the person to undergo an investigation by OPM or by an agency with delegated authority from OPM to conduct investigations. However, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2), an appointment will not be subject to investigation when the person being appointed has undergone a background investigation and the appointment involves:
(1) Appointment or conversion to an appointment in a covered position if the person has been serving continuously with the agency for at least 1 year in one or more covered positions subject to investigation;
(2) Transfer to a covered position, provided the person has been serving continuously for at least 1 year in a covered position subject to investigation;
(3) Transfer or appointment from an excepted service position that is not a covered position to a covered position, provided the person has been serving continuously for at least 1 year in a position where the person has been determined fit for appointment based on criteria equivalent to the factors provided at 5 CFR 731.202; or
(4) Appointment to a covered position from a position as an employee working as a Federal Government contract employee, provided the person has been serving continuously for at least 1 year in a job where a Federal agency determined the contract employee was fit to perform work on the contract based on criteria equivalent to the factors provided at 5 CFR 731.202.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) An appointment to a covered position also will be subject to investigation when:
(i) The covered position requires a higher level of investigation than previously conducted for the person being appointed; or (ii) An agency obtains new information in connection with the person's appointment that calls into question the person's suitability under Sec. 731.202;
(d) Reinvestigation requirements under Sec. 731.106 for public trust positions are not affected by this section.
(e) For purposes of this section, ``criteria equivalent to the factors provided at 5 CFR 731.202'' are criteria that provide adequate assurance that the person to be appointed, converted to an appointment, or transferred is suitable to be employed in a covered position, as determined by OPM, in issuances under this regulation. A decision by OPM, or by an agency applying guidance from OPM, that a prior fitness determination was not based on criteria equivalent to the factors provided at 5 CFR 731.202, and that a new investigation or adjudication is necessary is not subject to review under section 731.501 of this part.
4. In Sec. 731.106, revise paragraphs (c)(2) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 731.106 Designation of public trust positions and investigative requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) All positions subject to investigation under this part must also receive a sensitivity designation of SpecialSensitive, Critical Sensitive, or NoncriticalSensitive, when appropriate. This designation is complementary to the risk designation, and may have an effect on the position's investigative requirement. Sections 732.201 and 732.202 of this chapter detail the various sensitivity levels and investigative requirements. Procedures for determining investigative requirements for all positions based upon risk and sensitivity will be published in OPM issuances, as described in Sec. Sec. 731.102(c) and 732.201(b). * * * * *
(e) Risk level changes. If an employee experiences a change to a higher position risk level due to promotion, demotion, or reassignment, or the risk
[[Page 66493]]
level of the employee's position is changed to a higher level, the employee may remain in or encumber the position. Any upgrade in the investigation required for the new risk level should be initiated within 14 calendar days after the promotion, demotion, reassignment or new designation of risk level is final.
* * * * *
Subpart BSuitability Determinations and Actions
6. In Sec. 731.202, add a new paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 731.202 Criteria for making suitability determinations. * * * * *
(d) Reciprocity. An agency cannot make a new determination under this section for a person who has already been determined suitable or fit based on character or conduct unless a new investigation is required under Sec. 731.104 or Sec. 731.106, or no new investigation is required but the investigative record on file for the person shows conduct that is incompatible with the core duties of the relevant covered position.
7. Add a new Sec. 731.206 to read as follows:

Sec. 731.206 Reporting requirements.

Agencies must report to OPM the level and result of each background investigation, suitability determination, and suitability action taken under this part, as required in OPM issuances.
[FR Doc. E826558 Filed 11708; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 632539P

1,696 posted on 01/19/2009 3:25:59 PM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1694 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth; Chief Engineer; Fred Nerks; Kevmo; hoosiermama; Polarik; pissant; Beckwith; All

.

New action filed by Orly Taitz, ESQ based on the Executive Order by President Bush
for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Santa Ana Division

Alan Keyes, PhD., Wiley S. Drake, and Markham Robinson,

Plaintiffs

v.

Barack H. Obama, a/k/a Barack H. Obama, II a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro; Condoleeza Rice, in her capacity as Secretary of State; Robert Mueller, in his capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael W. Hager, in his capacity as Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management; and DOES 1-100
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY ACTION, INJUNCTION, AND COMMON LAW WRIT OF ALTERNATIVE MANDAMUS

Plaintiffs, Alan Keyes, PhD., a resident of the State of Maryland, and Wiley S. Drake, and Markham Robinson, each a resident of the State of California, all Petitioners herein, sue Defendants, Barack H. Obama, a/k/a Barack H. Obama, II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barry Obama; Condoleeza Rice, in her capacity as Secretary of State; Robert Mueller, in his capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael W. Hager, in his capacity as Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management; and allege:
I.
Parties
1. Alan Keyes, PhD., Plaintiff herein, is the Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, in the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;
2. Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., Plaintiff herein, is the Vice Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party in the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;
3. Markham Robinson, Plaintiff herein, is a Certified California Elector of the American Independent Party, Vice Chairman of the America’s Independent Party, and Chairman of the American Independent Party);
4. Defendant Barack H. Obama, II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barry Obama, (hereafter ‘Obama’) appeared on the California ballot as a presidential candidate in the presidential election of November, 2008.
5. Defendant Condoleeza Rice is the appointed and acting Secretary of State of the United States, and as such is charged with and has the care, custody and control of passports and passport records for the United States of America, and is charged with enforcement of immigration. 8 USC 1104 provides in part:

“Sec. 1104. Powers and duties of Secretary of State

(a) Powers and duties

The Secretary of State shall be charged with the administration and
the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and all other
immigration and nationality laws relating to (1) the powers, duties, and
functions of diplomatic and consular officers of the United States,
except those powers, duties, and functions conferred upon the consular
officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas; (2) the powers,
duties, and functions of the Administrator; and (3) the determination of
nationality of a person not in the United States. He shall establish
such regulations; prescribe such forms of reports, entries and other
papers; issue such instructions; and perform such other acts as he deems
necessary for carrying out such provisions. He is authorized to confer
or impose upon any employee of the United States, with the consent of
the head of the department or independent establishment under whose
jurisdiction the employee is serving, any of the powers, functions, or
duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued
thereunder upon officers or employees of the Department of State or of
the American Foreign Service.

(b) Designation and duties of Administrator

The Secretary of State shall designate an Administrator who shall be
a citizen of the United States, qualified by experience. The
Administrator shall maintain close liaison with the appropriate
committees of Congress in order that they may be advised regarding the
administration of this chapter by consular officers. The Administrator
shall be charged with any and all responsibility and authority in the
administration of this chapter which are conferred on the Secretary of
State as may be delegated to the Administrator by the Secretary of State
or which may be prescribed by the Secretary of State, and shall perform
such other duties as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

(c) Passport Office, Visa Office, and other offices; directors

Within the Department of State there shall be a Passport Office, a
Visa Office, and such other offices as the Secretary of State may deem
to be appropriate, each office to be headed by a director. The Directors
of the Passport Office and the Visa Office shall be experienced in the
administration of the nationality and immigration laws.”

6. Defendant Robert Mueller is the appointed and acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is charged with law enforcement and investigations, among other things, in the areas of elections, governmental corruption, and terrorist acts against the United States of America, and has broad investigative powers in order to perform its duties. 28 USC 535 provides:

“Sec. 535. Investigation of crimes involving Government officers
and employees; limitations

“(a) The Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may
investigate any violation of Federal criminal law involving Government
officers and employees—
(1) notwithstanding any other provision of law; and
(2) without limiting the authority to investigate any matter
which is conferred on them or on a department or agency of the
Government.

“(b) Any information, allegation, matter, or complaint witnessed,
discovered, or received in a department or agency of the executive
branch of the Government relating to violations of Federal criminal law
involving Government officers and employees shall be expeditiously
reported to the Attorney General by the head of the department or
agency, or the witness, discoverer, or recipient, as appropriate,
unless—
(1) the responsibility to perform an investigation with respect
thereto is specifically assigned otherwise by another provision of
law; or
(2) as to any department or agency of the Government, the
Attorney General directs otherwise with respect to a specified class
of information, allegation, or complaint.

(c) This section does not limit—
(1) the authority of the military departments to investigate
persons or offenses over which the armed forces have jurisdiction
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10);
or
(2) the primary authority of the Postmaster General to
investigate postal offenses.”

7. Defendant Michael W. Hager, in his capacity as Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management is charged with enforcement of the Executive Order referenced below.

II.
Legal Basis

8. January 16, 2009, President George W. Bush enacted an Executive Order providing for, in part, “Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust.” The Order in its entirety is attached hereto for reference as Exhibit “A.”
9. The Order provides in pertinent part that, “It is necessary to reinvestigate individuals in positions of public trust in order to ensure that they remain suitable for continued employment.”
10. The Order further provides in pertinent part:
“Sec. 5. Reinvestigation of Individuals in Positions of Public Trust. Individuals in positions of public trust shall be subject to reinvestigation under standards (including but not limited to the frequency of such reinvestigation) as determined by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to ensure their suitability for continued employment.
“Sec. 6. Responsibilities. (a) An agency shall report to the Office of Personnel Management the nature and results of the background investigation and fitness determination (or later changes to that determination) made on an individual, to the extent consistent with law.
“(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is delegated authority to implement this order, including the authority to issue regulations and guidance governing suitability, or guidance related to fitness, as the Director determines appropriate.”
11. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
“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;”

12. Title 18 Section 1001, United States Code provides in part:

“Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same
to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if
the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in
section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter
relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section
1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
not more than 8 years.”

13. 3 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 8 provides, “The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”
14. Constitution Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, at paragraph 2 establishes: “The Constitution . . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby . . .”, preserving the inviolability of Constitution codified in Magna Carta (1215) Sect. 61. The Constitution grants all powers necessary to enforce its inviolability.
15. The right of petition for redress of grievances, securing the Constitution, guarantees each person standing to preserve the inviolability of the Constitution, as preserved in the U.S. Constitution Amendment I, in the Bill of Rights (1689), and as codified in Magna Carta (1215) Sect. 61.

III.
FACTS

16. Plaintiff Markham Robinson is a Certified California Elector of the American Independent Party, Vice Chairman of the America’s Independent Party, and Chairman of the American Independent Party); and has standing to maintain this action based upon the electoral statute quoted above, in that this federal statute confers upon each elector an affirmative duty to discover whether the candidate for President for which the elector is seeking election is a natural born citizen. Otherwise, the elector would not know if his vote was being cast in the “manner directed by the Constitution.”
17. Plaintiffs Alan Keyes, and Wiley S. Drake have standing to pursue this action as the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, respectively, of the American Independent Party, in the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot. Furthermore, each plaintiff has standing to uphold the inviolability of the Constitution.
18. Defendant Obama was been elected to the United States Office of the President, and confirmed by electors, without his citizenship being verified or proven.
19. To assume office, Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States as set forth in the Constitution, which includes that he must be a “natural born” citizen, having sole allegiance to the United States as required to become Commander in Chief.
20. Defendant Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a “natural born” citizen, and there is evidence leading a reasonable person to believe that it cannot be presumed that he is a natural born citizen, as shall be set forth hereafter.
21. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship concerning Obama. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.
22. The Defendants, and all of them, are charged with the care of records, or law enforcement as set forth above.
23. To date, Obama has both failed and refused to provide any documents to the Plaintiffs, the Secretary of State of California, or to the American people, for that matter, any documentation of his eligibility to serve as president of the United States, despite the many reasonable indications that he may lack such eligibility.
24. In his books, which are published and publicly available (‘Dreams of My Father’ and ‘The Audacity of Hope’) Obama has admitted that his father was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his birth. Obama thus had allegiance to Britain at birth.
25. In his books, Obama has admitted the age of his mother at the time of his birth to be 18.
26. In the event that Obama was not born in the United States, according to law at the time of his birth, he is not necessarily a citizen of the United States.
27. In his public comments in San Francisco to a group of voters in 2008, Obama stated that he had traveled to Pakistan in 1981.
28. In 1981 it was not legal for a United States citizen, presenting a United States passport to travel to Pakistan.
29. As a result of this admission, it is reasonable to believe that Obama presented a passport from another country, possibly Indonesia, and therefore, he is arguably not a United States citizen.
30. Plaintiffs reasonably believe that Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport as a result of his having been adopted by his step father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and taken the name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ in or around 1967.
31. Records show that Lolo Soetoro registered one ‘Barry Soetoro’ in elementary school in Indonesia, declaring his citizenship to be “Indonesian” and religion to be “Muslim”, and Obama admits his sojourn there in his writings. See Exhibit ‘B’ attached.
31. No evidence of any legal name change from ‘Barry Soetoro’ to ‘Barack Obama’ can be located through ordinary public records searches, and so adequate records must be produced and examined to determine whether or not Obama has violated the 18 USC 1001 by providing a false name or an alias in his bid for President of the United States.
32. From 1945, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship and, therefore, Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro, Obama’s mother, had to relinquish her minor son’s U.S. citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him, which would, in itself, give him divided loyalties, a foreign allegiance, and make him ineligible to become President of the United States President.
33. Additionally, the United States did not allow dual citizenship with Indonesia at that time, as Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and it was prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1930, as interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign country.
34. Consequently, upon return to the United States in and around 1971-1972, Obama would have been required to go through the then current immigration procedures to regain his U.S. citizenship. There is no record of him ever doing that. Even if he had done so, he would be considered a naturalized citizen, and not a natural born citizen.
35. A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ for one Barack Hussein Obama, II, has been posted on the Internet, in an attempt to quiet the concerns of the public, but the document fails to satisfy the burden of proof generated by and sustained by Obama, in that:
a. The original certified long form (“vault”) birth certificate as attested to by multiple witnesses has not been produced, and there has been no mandate from any authority to compel such production; and
b. The document posted on the internet is a scanned document, which could easily be changed or edited, using modern computer technology; and
c. The posted Certification of Live Birth has a different border than that shown on similar certificates produced around the same time by the office of vital records for the state of Hawaii; and
d. Assuming the document to be genuine, there is no prejudice to Obama in production of the original; and
e. The law in Hawaii in 1961, and for all births prior to 1972, (see Chapter 338-178, Hawaii Statutes) provided that a birth could be recorded in Hawaii even if the birth did not occur in Hawaii; and
f. Therefore, a long form (“vault”) birth certificate, showing the hospital where the birth took place, the name of a delivering physician, the witnesses attesting to the certificate, and other pertinent verifying information, and not an abstract certificate is required to demonstrate the birth of Obama in Hawaii.
36. Plaintiffs have been put on notice that there is further evidence available, of which this court could take judicial notice, that places the citizenship and eligibility of Obama in serious question, the facts for such evidence being as follows:
a. On August 21, 2008, Mr. Phillip J. Berg, former Deputy Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, filed a legal action against Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee.
b. With his action, and in the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Berg provided documents to the effect that Mr. Obama was born in what is now Kenya (the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar at the time) and that his paternal grandmother was present at his birth. Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii.
c. According to statements made by his half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii.
d. According to his biography posted on Wikipedia, Senator Obama was born in Queens Hospital in Hawaii.
e. In the context of this and other cases filed, Mr. Obama has refused to provide his original birth certificate, even though, in his book, Dreams of My Father, page 26, he states, “… I found the article folded between my birth certificate and old immunization records…” which shows that he clearly has his birth certificate, or that he lied in his book.
d. Particularly telling is the fact that not one single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to state that he or she was present during this birth, except for Obama’s paternal grandmother, who affirmed that she “was present when he was born in Kenya.”
e. Additionally, when Mr. Berg served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned above, Mr. Obama refused to sign a consent form that would allow the hospitals to release any of his information.
f. Instead, Mr. Obama has hired three law firms to defend himself, and has challenged the action by Mr. Berg on a technicality, claiming that an ordinary citizen does not have standing to bring the suit.
IV.
RELIEF SOUGHT

37. Based upon the above, and in light of the fact that the President of the United States is its chief law enforcement officer, Defendant Obama has the ethical and Constitutional duty to produce records sufficient to demonstrate he is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of and act as President of the United States.
38. In the absence of such proof, the electoral college having elected Defendant Obama to President elect, the President elect, must be determined to have failed to qualify, whereby the Vice President becomes the Acting President under U.S. Constitution Amendment 20.
39. Plaintiffs seek the affirmative act of production of documents as against Defendant Obama, to verify that he constitutionally qualifies for the office of President of the United States, and in failure thereof, a direct mandate to the public officials herein named to demand the production of such records from the public and private officials who maintain them; and such other relief as this Court may deem proper.
40. It is the duty of the Defendants Rice and Mueller to use the assets of the people of the United States placed in their control as public guardians to produce or compel production by the holders of such documents, the following:
a. Original long form (“vault”) Birth Certificate for Barack H. Obama, a.k.a Barry Soetoro, and each and every birth Certificate and subsequent version or any birth Certificate for that person so known at this time, regardless of the name shown thereon or given at birth; and
b. Any and all emigration and immigration documents, port of entry documents regarding the travels to and from the United States showing the citizenship status and visa status of Barack H. Obama, or Barry Soetoro, or any permutation on those names; and
c. Any and all university and/or college records and/or transcripts that would show the application for admission, the application for financial aid, and the citizenship of one Barack H. Obama, II and/or Barry Soetoro, or any permutation on those names; and
d. Any other such documentation which will cast light upon the truth of the matter.
41. It is the duty of Defendant Hager to comply with the Executive Order cited above.
42. Failing to officially and publicly validate the status of the citizenship claims of Obama will jeopardize the security of the United States, will perpetuate an unconstitutional election to stand in the place of a possibly legal election, cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.
43. Plaintiffs Keyes and Drake have been irreparably harmed by being unable to compete in a fair and unbiased election.
44. Plaintiff Robinson has been harmed in that he was not be able to perform his duties as an Elector in voting for the candidate that is eligible to become the President of the United States under the law.
45. Plaintiff Keyes has additionally suffered substantial harm due to the following circumstances:
a. In 2006 Plaintiff Keys was a runner-up in a US senate race from the state of Illinois to Defendant Obama.
b. If indeed the Obama is not a citizen of the United States, then he is not a legal naturalized citizen either and cannot be a United States senator either.
c. In this case Plaintiff Keyes would be sworn as a United States senator as a runner up in the prior election. This logically means that Plaintiff Keyes will suffer immediate specific damage without this question being resolved.
First Cause of Action – Declaratory Relief
46. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 45 and pray this Court will declare whether under Article II, Section 1, and Amendment 20 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant Barack H. Obama is a natural born citizen and that Plaintiffs’ attorneys are entitled to a reasonable fee; and
47. Grant a judgment including costs of this proceeding and fees as are applicable by law; and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Second Cause of Action - Injunction
48. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 45 and pray this Court will determine that the inauguration set for January 20, 2009 should be stayed pending the outcome of this, and similar litigation, determining that the Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that under Article II, Section 1 and Amendment 20 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant Barack H. Obama is not a natural born citizen and has not qualified, and that Plaintiffs’ attorneys are entitled to a reasonable fee; and
49. Grant a judgment including costs of this proceeding and fees as are applicable by law; and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Third Cause of Action – Common Law Writ of Mandamus
50. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 45 and pray this Court will find grounds to issue a common law alternative writ of mandamus and thereby direct Defendants Rice, Hager, and Mueller to produce, or compel production of the documents as set forth in paragraph 40 hereof; and
51. Determine that Plaintiffs’ attorneys are entitled to a reasonable fee; and
52. Grant a judgment including costs of this proceeding and fees as are applicable by law; and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted on January 19, 2009.
_______________________

Date: 01.19.09.
________________________________________
ORLY TAITZ, Esq. (SBN 223433)
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
Telephone: (949) 683-5411
Facsimile: (949) 586-2082

Attorney for Plaintiff
http://drorly.blogspot.com/

.


1,697 posted on 01/19/2009 5:35:42 PM PST by patriot08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1696 | View Replies]

To: patriot08; LucyT

thanks for the ping...that was a JOY to read!


1,698 posted on 01/19/2009 7:07:22 PM PST by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1697 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

It may not come to anything- but we’re giving him h*ll.
He won’t rest a minlute. We’ll keep after him


1,699 posted on 01/19/2009 7:10:16 PM PST by patriot08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1698 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth; Chief Engineer; Fred Nerks; Kevmo; hoosiermama; Polarik; pissant; Beckwith; All

.
The Oklahoma representative who asked for a patriot who works for the Federal govmt just said on Plains Radio that noone has called. Please- if you know of anyone, call!

.


1,700 posted on 01/19/2009 7:29:25 PM PST by patriot08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1699 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,661-1,6801,681-1,7001,701-1,720 ... 1,941-1,945 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson