I’m not associated with Lamb of Lamb v. Obama, Romney and I’m not associated with @OctSurprise on Twitter.
I won’t be releasing anything within the next 19 days.
If you’ll spend a few minutes reading the pleadings in Lamb v. Obama, Romney you’ll understand there is precedent for unsealing records of politicians who will not release their records due to privacy concerns.
Unless a court orders it’s release, Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization on file with the USCIS is a private matter and cannot legally be exposed. That is not to say Obama is eligible because I cannot post a copy of his Certificate of Naturalization online. Obama is a fraud and usurper that has not been exposed, yet.
As to being a hero, I’m sure Lamb and @OctSurpise will get the credit. They earned it.
Sven, thanks for the reply.
I had the impression from other posts that the Octsuprise folks were lefties, so I did not expect any help in exposing Obama from them.
I would love to be proven wrong in this case.
I noticed that one of the fuzzy docs had a round seal on it at the top left,
I wonder if this could be one such document.
Not off to a good start - from the Lamb v. Obama docket:
10/15/2012 Order Denying Motion for Expedited Consideration of: Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate Disclosure of Records Pertaining to Presidential Candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney ~ On October 11, 2012, Mr. Thomas Lamb filed a motion for expedited consideration of his motion for immediate disclosure of records. At a minimum, the motion is premature. Before the plaintiff’s motion could be considered, plaintiff must provide the court with legitimate Civil Rule 5 proof of service of the summons and complaint and the pending motions and supporting documents on defendants. Thus, the motion for expedited consideration is denied at this time. Lamb, Thomas A Case Motion #1 Motion for Expedited Consideration of: Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate Disclosure of Records Pertaining to Presidential Candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney
10/17/2012
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration for Expedited Consideration ~ On October 16, 2012, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court’s October 12, 2012, order denying expedited consideration of his motion for immediate disclosure of records. In its October 12, 2012, order the court required proof of service of the summons and complaint and the underlying motion and request for expedited consideration on the defendants Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Plaintiff’s basis for reconsideration is that he did serve the defendants. In fact, plaintiff has not perfected proper service on defendants. Civil Rule 4(d)(1) requires personal service of the summons and complaint on defendants. Civil Rule 4(h) provides for alternate service by mail if the mailing of the summons and complaint is done by registered or certified mail with restricted delivery to the defendant who must sign off on the return receipt. Plaintiff has not followed Civil Rule 4(d) or Civil Rule 4(h). There has been no personal service. Plaintiff’s service by mail was directed to ‘Romney for President” and “Obama for America.” These mailings are not proper service by mail under Alaska law. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/eservices/home.page.8
Search by name Thomas Lamb or case number 3AN-12-09961CI
Also it is doubtful the cases he cites (Miller and Ryan) could apply. Neither applies to private personal records from an out-of-state source. Alaska Superior court can not order Hawaii DOH or Occidental or Columbia to release private records without going to court in their respective states and getting a court order. You are talking months maybe years before that could work through the system.
As it is this court doesn’t seem very interested in taking this case.
Sven, one additional question. Did Obama/Soetoro naturalize from Indonesia? Or somewhere else?
Thanks.