BARNETT v OBAMA Motion to Reconsider, Taitz Declaration, Coroner report, Sinclair affidavit

Its interesting to note that both the United States Attorney General and the US Attorney for the District of Columbia are African-Americans and Democrats.

...and Obama appointees.

Wow - petitioning their representative to start impeachment proceedings? That should go real well in this RAT dominated enviornment. Please Mr. Blonde. No offense meant, but I don’t think you realize what kind of lack of position you really are in. The Supreme Court won’t even HEAR or allow DISCOVERY on why this fraud won’t show his bio. He’s a complete FAKE and FRAUD and he INTENDS to DESTROY your country which he seems to be accomplishing rather quickly. jmo CO

Lack of position? I’m the one every judge this has come before has agreed with.

You may not like the options available to you, but that doesn’t mean you can create a brand new unconstitutional one.

If the law required it then I'd say that Obama should provide it. Since the law does not then I don't think he should be forced to do what no other president has had to do.

Thank you for your answer that appears to be your sincere opinion.

However, please allow me to press you one more time:

What I wished to address was the ethical and moral issues of the case: divorced from the legal aspects.

In plain language - those actions that are GOOD and NOBEL.

Not all actions that are Good and Nobel are bound by law.

For instance, one time some punks (in my presence) tried to rob an older man of his wallet, and I intervened.

The law did NOT require me to "interfere," (I could have kept walking)however, my code of right and wrong would not allow me to look the other way.

Recently, it was in the NEWS how a girl was raped, in broad daylight, as a large crowed looked on and did nothing to stop it (nor, by LAW, were they required to stop it) and, in fact, some even cheered the rapists on!

Now There are some -- call them "birthers" "patriots" "constitutionalist" -- that see their country being raped through evisceration of the constitution and the obliteration of the lofty vision of it's framers; by tin gods, such as Obama, that openly declare that our constitution is "fundamentally flawed!"

So we each have a moral choice to make as to where we stand:

We can do the right and Nobel thing, or we can turn are faces away -- because the law doesn't require us to fight evil.

Or worse, we can cheer the evil doers on!

Has the "home of the brave" become a nation of cowards?

So let me ask this:

Shouldn't our President, as leader of the free world, be the one to take the "high road" -- the noble road -- rather than the "easy" way out?

What is he hiding in the dark that he is so afraid may be revealed to the light?

I am sorry, but his behaver in the matter of his vital record's may or may not be legal, but it certainly isn't ethical or Nobel or brave.

So I ask wouldn't you agree that going to court and showing his birth certificate -- irrespective of whether the law compels him to go -- be the right and Nobel thing for him do?

Keep in mind that just because other Presidents have behaved in a certain way does not shield the actions of a sitting President from legitimate criticism.

Founder John Adams wrote:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Thank you for your time.

STE=Q

Just for the sake of argument, Barack Obama posted his Certification of Live Birth on the internet over a year ago for the entire world to see. That document contained ALL of the constitutionally required information: Place of birth in the US and age over 35 years old.
The State of Hawaii has verified the information on that document.
Do you really think that Barack Obama’s policies will change in any way shape or form after showing his long form birth certificate instead of the short form?

Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
By Dan Nakaso, The Honolulu Advertiser

In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii’s health director reiterated that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago....”

On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among “birthers” that Obama was born in Kenya and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.

Despite Fukino’s statements, the issue has continued to resonate from Capitol Hill to the national airwaves.

CNN’s Lou Dobbs demanded Obama’s original birth certificate. CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of Lou Dobbs Tonight that the issue is a “dead” story, Kline told the Los Angeles Times in an interview published Sunday.

In an e-mail, the Times reported, Klein wrote that CNN researchers determined that Obama’s 1961 birth certificate no longer exists because Hawaiian officials had discarded paper documents in 2001 — a claim denied Monday by Hawaiian health officials.

In 2001, Hawaii’s paper documents were reproduced in electronic format, but “any paper data prior to that still exists,” Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.

Okubo would not say where Obama’s original birth certificate is but said, “We have backups for all of our backups.”

A congressional resolution introduced by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of island statehood was delayed Monday.

The resolution includes a clause noting Obama’s Hawaiian birthplace. The line “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961” appeared to be construed by birthers as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. citizenship, said Dave Helfert, an Abercrombie spokesman.

As the issue came to a vote, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., rose to object, saying there was not a quorum present. The House later voted 378-0 to approve the resolution. Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution.

Birthers denounce the notion that Obama was born in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, despite court rulings and statements by Fukino and Hawaii’s Republican governor, Linda Lingle.

TYPO: NOBEL = NOBLE

Just for the sake of argument, Barack Obama posted his Certification of Live Birth on the internet over a year ago for the entire world to see. That document contained ALL of the constitutionally required information: Place of birth in the US and age over 35 years old.

Well, that's good news!

Since the above "document contain(s) ALL of the constitutionally required information," as you say, then he should simply bring it into the appropriate court -- where those "silly" birthers are challenging him -- and show it to the Judge and allow a panel of experts to authenticate it.

And, by all means, bring a statement by Fukino too!

It would be a lot cheaper than spending hundreds of thousands in legal fees fighting discovery not to mention all the unessary court time being wasted on an issue he could so EASILY address -- don't you think?

The above would seem, to a reasonable person, to be the most straightforward way to handle those pesky "birthers" -- don't you think?

Oh, and did I mention how much cheaper it would be?

Some of those kooky birthers have even gone so far as to say that he may be hiding something!!

Now why would ANYONE think that?

STE=Q STE=Q

More on Sinclair – Taitz — Young

http://blessedistruth.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/no-rhyme-nor-reason-save-love/#comment-136

Well, that’s good news!

Since the above “document contain(s) ALL of the constitutionally required information,” as you say, then he should simply bring it into the appropriate court — where those “silly” birthers are challenging him — and show it to the Judge and allow a panel of experts to authenticate it.

And, by all means, bring a statement by Fukino too!

It would be a lot cheaper than spending hundreds of thousands in legal fees fighting discovery not to mention all the unessary court time being wasted on an issue he could so EASILY address — don’t you think?

The above would seem, to a reasonable person, to be the most straightforward way to handle those pesky “birthers” — don’t you think?

Oh, and did I mention how much cheaper it would be?

Some of those kooky birthers have even gone so far as to say that he may be hiding something!!

Now why would ANYONE think that?

STE=Q STE=Q

Would you trust any document brought to a court by Obama?

The Attorney General of the state of Hawaii, Mark Bennett (a Republican, by the way) has the statutory authority to subpoena Barack Obama’s original, long form, vault copy birth records and the power to convene a Grand Jury to examine them with expert testimony. Prosecuting attorneys convene Grand Juries to go on legal “fishing expeditions” all the time. Thus far Attorney General Bennett has not chosen to go that route. My point of view is that pressure should be brought to bear on the Hawaii Attorney General to seek such a subpoena.

Since January 20, 2009 all Obama’s eligibility related legal expenses are paid for by the taxpaying citizens of the United States of America. Haven’t you noticed that the US Justice Department is the defense team preparing the Motions to Dismiss in every federal lawsuit?

When Phil Berg’s suit which did name Obama (Berg v Obama) was sent to Justice Souter for a Writ of Certiorari, the Obama legal team did not even file a response to Berg’s suit. By not filing a response they were in fact saying, “we’re ok with the Justices deciding this issue on their own without any input from us.” Thus no legal expenses.

The birthers thought that Justice Souter had given Obama a deadline to produce his birth certificate. In reality Justice Souter gave Obama the opportunity to file a response to Berg’s suit which Obama chose not to do. The Supreme Court denied Berg’s request for a Writ of Certiorari which means that four Justices could not be found out of the nine to agree to hear Berg’s case before the full court.

Prior to January 20th, most of the lawsuits didn’t even name Obama as a defendant, so no legal expenses for him. For example, Allan Keyes’ original suit was the case of “Bowen v Lightfoot.” The suit was against California’s Secretary of State. Leo Donofrio’s suit was “Donofrio v Wells”. Another eligibility case that went to the Supreme Court was “Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.” You don’t have to spend any money when you are not even named as a defendant.

Thus far 54 Obama eligibility related legal actions have been denied or dismissed by courts at the state, federal and Supreme Court levels. From Obama’s point of view, I am certain that his legal advisors have told him to simply let the legal system work its will with the remaining outstanding 7 legal actions. If some court should order release of his original birth records at some future date, he would then have to comply.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/docket/

Would you trust any document brought to a court by Obama?

Well, it's my understanding(I am not a lawyer)that once he posited a document with the court, it would then be subject to examination, as to it's authenticity, by the concerned parties to the case.

Haven’t you noticed that the US Justice Department is the defense team preparing the Motions to Dismiss in every federal lawsuit?

Unfortunately, I did notice... and it didn't leave a good taste in my mouth.

However, I'm sure there will be a gaggle of lawyers here soon, telling us it's all A-OK!

Lots of good information in your post.

Thanks!

STE=Q

Sounds to me like you really don’t care what happens. Not interested in anything of any importance. Don’t tell me that fraudulently foisting yourself into the race for President of the United States without any back up documentation, should lack standing in a Court of Law. Not buying it. Don’t bother me with the rest. Just not true. The court SHOULD be the final arbiter and demand the evidence if the Congress will not. CO

I think the answer is political. I don’t think being mad about losing an election justifies trying to rewrite the judicial rulebook. Sorry.

If anyone who is so convinced that Obama isn’t an American citizen is from Oklahoma and they want to get it on the ballot exactly what a presidential candidate has to show to be on the Oklahoma ballot I will happily sign the petition and vote for it in 2010.

I contributed #11 in the Motion to Reconsider, page 3. Do look at the Dismissal’s reliance on Ashwander vs. Tenn Valley, and then my turning it back on them.

The subject matter of an alleged constitutional violation, absent specific statutory or case law on the issue, IS MANDATORY.

CARTER MUST TAKE THE CASE.