Posted on 10/09/2009 1:58:59 PM PDT by Brown Deer
OBAMA Birth Certificate Trial UPdate of Oct 5
Santa Ana, CA. - October 5th, 2009, Both plaintiff's Attorneys', Gary Kreep, and Orly Taitz express some concern that 9th Dist. Federal Judge David Carter, has today done a `180 degree reversal from his position of Sept. 8th, 2009, that this case Questioning - Obama's Right by Birth, to be president would go forward for a federal Jury to determine On the "Merits", and is now trying to stall by demanding "standing to sue" issue, Jurisdiction and the ultimate battle axe, "its a Political Question". The three blind mice, ABC, CBS, NBC networks, plus the Governments unOfficial Propaganda Networks, CNN and FOX were noticeably absent without Leave, leaving William Wagener, the only TV Media, [ www.OnSecondThought.TV ] to cover the press Conference.
OBAMA birth Certificate Update of Oct 5, 09 Part 2
Part 2, of Oct. 5th, 2009, Exclusive TV coverage of the NEWS CONFERENCE after Judge David Carter appeared to be straining to top, just what he promised on Sept. 8th, a Trial a Jury would sort out different claims of Barack Obama NOT being a Natural Born Citizen, as required by ART 2, Sect. 201-5 of U.S. Constitution, and dismiss for lack of standing...
Oct 5th 2009 OBAMA Kenyan Birth Cert Trial Part 3
Final clip of the EXCLUSIVE Video TV coverage of the OBAMA Kenyan Birth Certificate Trial, and the Main stream TV media did a total AWOL, blacked out coverage to keep America from even knowing that the "Natural Born" issue of OBAMA, is hot and now.
William Wagener, gets exclusive TV footage for his TV show. Pastor Wiley DRAKE states Judge Carter, whom he has known as a tough and fair judge for 20 years, and ex Marine, has been Emasculated, done a flip flop, and been "told" to delay. Eveyln Bradley says Carter will probably dismiss, and Anita hynds calls for impeachment. William Wagener Reporting from Santa Ana, Ca.
Not quite.
"God does not have a birth certificate and neither does Obama".
Rush Limbaugh.
Establishing such facts is what trials, discovery, etc are about.
If J.Q. Citizen no longer has standing to sue to enforce the Constitution, the Constitution is a dead letter and it is time for the final box. I hope that does not turn out to be true.
If there would be a full legal, adversarial examination of the issue, with the full appeals process played out on the issue of his father's lack of citizenship, and Obama were found to be fully eligible, then so be it, and we continue to fight his agenda.
LOL!
Frankly, we don’t know with certainty where The One was born. If he was born in Hawaii, it is curious that he won’t release his long form certificate...wonder why?
What could be on it? Has to be something that is at least, very embarrassing.
*******
On Obama's short form birth certificate that we see on the internet, there is this phrase stamped on the bottom:
"Date filed by registrar" and the date "Aug. 8,1961."
1. "Date accepted by registrar": But as I understand it---and from what I have seen on other Hawaii birth certificates displayed on the internet---a valid Hawaii birth certificate up to at least 1985 should have the following: "Date accepted by registrar".
2. As I understand it, the phrase "Date filed by registrar" could mean that the person was not born in a hospital.
3. One question I have is this: If Obama's birth certificate has a "Date filed by registrar" of "Aug. 8,1961", at what point in the past 50 was Obama's 1961 birth certificate moved up into the more legally important category of "Date accepted by registrar"?
4. My point is this: If the Obama short form birth certificate we see on the internet has "Date filed by registrar" instead of the more legally important of "Date accepted by registrar", then there is something seriously wrong with the Obama birth certificate, because it only has the worthless "Date filed by registrar."
5. So, in my opinion, resolving the "Date filed by registrar" vs. "Date accepted by registrar" issue could go a long way in answering the question of whether Obama was or was not born in Hawaii.
6. That is, if Hawaii officials are holding an Obama birth certificate with the phrase of "Date accepted by registrar" stamped on it, then it has a moral and ethical duty to release it to the public.
It is going to take a revolution and I mean a REAL one. One backed by the crapped on US Military. This man will NEVER leave the White House without force. He will begine to manufacture crisis’s, declare Martial Law, and then suspend elctions. I suspect that will happen BEFORE 2010. America needs to organize and move FAST!! Your very existence depends on it. CO
Check out Canada Free Press and its Intel!!!
“Establishing such facts is what trials, discovery, etc are about.”
But you need to be able to plead sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the law. Merely saying Obama is a Kenyan, or a “usurper” isn’t going to work. There has to be something substantial, something real for the trial to be about.
“If J.Q. Citizen no longer has standing to sue to enforce the Constitution, the Constitution is a dead letter and it is time for the final box.”
J.Q. Public, per se, outside of actions based in the individual rights arising under the Bill of Rights which this wouldn’t be, has NEVER had standing to sue to enforce the constitution unless he has a particularized injury. Its no more a dead letter today than it was 100 years ago. But where did you get the idea that J.Q. Public has or ever had a general right to sue to enforce provisions of the constitution? There is a lot of nonsense parading around as constitutional law surrounding this issue which ought to stop.
“If there would be a full legal, adversarial examination of the issue, with the full appeals process played out on the issue of his father’s lack of citizenship, and Obama were found to be fully eligible, then so be it, and we continue to fight his agenda.”
I take it the election process, with the primaries and the general election didn’t suffice? That’s where issues like this one belong; perhaps before the ratification of the election, in Congress. If its a real issue, someone will run with it in 2012, perhaps even some House or Senate candidate in 2010. In the latter cases, it might even mean the margin of victory; in the former, its a guarantee of defeat.
You raise excellent points...have you ever considered asking for a job with the media?
Is it not hard to believe that NO ONE in the mainstream media will look at these questions?
Wonder why?
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2009/08/second-american-revolution.html
I have predicted that the Obama presidency will lead in time to a Second American Revolution....
I agree: Obama and his Leftard allies will not willingly go into the night.
W R O N G !
I'm going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
" ”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.
There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
” No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.
If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.
3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
“At this point he doesn’t have to. The burden is on those who maintain he ISN’T constitutionally qualified to serve;”
W R O N G !”
Great screen name. Fits your post admirably.
What makes you think that you as an individual, or any group of individual citizens, including sitting members of Congress, can, at this point, enforce the 20th amendment by some sort of court action? That’s absolute nonsense. What is even more absurd is your notion that individual citizens can “...start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment.” You can try it, and after a couple of these suits are dismissed, the courts can start bankrupting the Plaintiffs and their attorneys with sanctions for wasting the courts’...and the People’s, time and money.
Your remedy is in November 2012.
I certainly can demand to see proof that the twentieth amendment has been complied with. If it hasn't been, we don't have a legal President and if the courts say we have no standing to certify that the Constitution has been ENFORCED, there is no longer "law" worth respecting in this country. Put up or shut up.
I proved to you that we do have a law REQUIRING that the President elect has the burden of proving his/her qualifications to Congress. Its written plain as day in the Constitution itself. You, who claims to be "a simple old country lawyer" stated that it did not exist. Now you change your argument to "it ain't gonna fly" because it's over and done, etc. etc. Keep digging.
His father was not a US citizen, at the time of his birth, or ever. That's enough. The BC thing would just be "easier" in that no modern interpretation of the Constitution need be debunked.
I take it the election process, with the primaries and the general election didn’t suffice?
No it didn't. The election cannot magically cure a Constitutional deficiency. Ask the people of California about that. They vote in State constitutional amendments, and the federal courts strike 'em down.
While the Bill of Rights, and certain other provisions of the Constitution are about individual rights, most of it is not. It's about the structure of and limitations on government. Mostly federal but some of the limitations are on the state governments as well.
Art. III Section II.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
You see, we are allowed to actually read the Constitution, we don't have to settle for what others tell us it says. It was written to be understood by common, only moderately literate, people. We need no High Priests to tell us it's meaning.
J.Q. Public, per se, outside of actions based in the individual rights arising under the Bill of Rights which this wouldn’t be, has NEVER had standing to sue to enforce the constitution unless he has a particularized injury.
Oh yea? here's an example where the injury of the plaintiffs was "general" and not specific to them, and the case involved a Constitutional provision that is not an "individual" right, the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. FLAST v. COHEN, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
The Government moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that appellants lacked standing to maintain the action....For reasons explained at length below, we hold that appellants do have standing as federal taxpayers to maintain this action, and the judgment below must be reversed....
So maybe we should challenge BO's power to spend any taxpayer money on the ground that he is not eligible to exercise that power of the Presidency?
“I certainly can demand to see proof that the twentieth amendment has been complied with.”
Says who? And when you are escorted from your congressman’s office, what will you do about it? Go to court? :)
“You, who claims to be “a simple old country lawyer” stated that it did not exist.”
Concentrate and try to understand. I did not say the 20th amendment doesn’t exist. I said you have no right to enforce it. Congress determined that Obama “qualified”. Its over. They have already “enforced” it.
“I proved to you that we do have a law REQUIRING that the President elect has the burden of proving his/her qualifications to Congress.”
Sigh; he did that and Congress ratified the vote of the Electoral College. In court the characters bringing the birther cases have the burden. That’s the way the Founders wanted it, Uncle Sham. Now, if the fringe wants a French system of law here whereby any accusation can be made and the same stands proven until unproven...OK. I’ve always suspected that fringes in this country really wanted a Napoleonic Code system rather than the Anglo Saxon Common Law system bequeathed to us by the Founders.
As I sad, please bring your action. You will lose. Bring it again and you will be sanctioned; a thrid time and you’ll likely be sanctioned more severely and barred from bringing any suits without further leave of court. But its up to you.
Since, legally, the "President elect" is non-existent UNTIL Congress has ratified the results of the electoral college, the Twentieth amendment, section three has NOTHING to do with electoral college results.
You claim he "qualified". I say show the evidence that he did so. If this evidence of such a qualification can't be shown, it doesn't legally exist. If it doesn't exist, it never was shown. If it never was shown, then there was never a "qualification. If there was never a "qualification", then, legally, there is NO President.
You claim that he "qualified" yet have nothing to offer as proof. The burden of proof is on those who claim qualification occurred.
“His father was not a US citizen, at the time of his birth, or ever. That’s enough.”
Why? Has any court said this, EG?
“The election cannot magically cure a Constitutional deficiency.”
No it can’t cure any pre-existing one. But it surely could have highlighted a deficiency in Obama’s qualifications if one exists. But it didn’t, did it, EG? Probably because there is no rational basis for the claim that Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualified.
“You see, we are allowed to actually read the Constitution, we don’t have to settle for what others tell us it says.”
What is it in Art. III, Sec 2 that gives you the right to force Obama to prove, through court, that he is Constitutionally qualified to be President?
“It was written to be understood by common, only moderately literate, people.”
Oh?
“We need no High Priests to tell us it’s meaning.”
The Founders didn’t trust “the People” at all. That’s why we have High Priests; they are called Judges.
“Oh yea? here’s an example where the injury of the plaintiffs was “general” and not specific to them, and the case involved a Constitutional provision that is not an “individual” right, the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. FLAST v. COHEN, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)”
Uh, EG, Flast was a 1st Amendment case, an “Estabishment Clause” case. The First Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Please read the case again. Then read Justice Alito’s much more recent opinion in Hein v. Freedom From Religion, Inc.; here’s a link:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-157.pdf
“So maybe we should challenge BO’s power to spend any taxpayer money on the ground that he is not eligible to exercise that power of the Presidency?”
Go ahead; you’ll lose. Read Hein again.
“You claim that he “qualified” yet have nothing to offer as proof. The burden of proof is on those who claim qualification occurred.”
But Uncle Sham, in the real world where most of us live, he did qualify and he is the POTUS, unfortunate as that may be.
You really would like it in France. Their imperial Napoleonic legal system might be just the place to try out your theories. They won’t work here, but as I said, file away. The Federal Courts, as they say, never close.
I live in the "real" world where there is "real" proof of qualification. You say we should be satisfied living in the real world where there is "imaginary" proof of qualification. Show me this proof and I'll shut up. Until then, it will only get louder and louder.
How come the Federal Courts will grant standing to lawsuits to remove crosses on remote mountains in the Mojave Desert that harm no one, and yet not grant standing in this case under that same Constitution???
Who is doing greater damage to the people of this nation -- that lonely cross or that pretender in the Oval Office???
O’Reilly had the Sesame street Michelle obama skit on last night. The one where the vegetables say Michelle can’t show obama’s BC.
He laughed and asked if it went too far. The guest said it was time obama was satired as Bush was.
I believe the Canada Free Press article. Media was threatened they could lose their jobs by Obama’s attorney before he took office. Canada free press has made sone wild accustions but to place a fake letter is not their style.
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.