Court told 'citizen' Obama actually may be alien

WND ^ | March 25, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[opentalk]

Forget the dispute over the "natural born citizen" requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents, Barack Obama may not even be a "citizen," according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

"Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born," says a new filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.

"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii."

The submission comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the case. His brief argues against the earlier document from Obama's attorneys demanding that the case be dismissed.

WND reported earlier when the lawyer argued that the most common reason judges have used to dismiss cases against Obama – a lack of "standing" – is just wrong.

Obama's arguments in this case, in fact, rely almost exclusively on that issue to suggest the case by Apuzzo should be dismissed.

"How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo said recently during an interview with WND. "He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we're not a Christian nation; we're one of the largest Muslim nations. It's all there."

[rolling_stone]

So public means as many people as you want it to mean? A minority of the public have in fact been vocal and exercised all legal means available to them to challenge Obie’s eligibility. If you think because a number of people are ignorant its okay to shun the wishes of those that are not ignorant? Liberalthink and talk come to mind when you espouse convoluted ideas to back up your agenda regardless of the facts. You really are TIRED your same old rationalizing garbage is getting OLD...and you are no CONSERVATIVE. You can roll over while they stick it to you, but as for me I choose freedom.

[sten]

no basis in law? really??

and here I thought ONLY the president can sign bills into law... when in reality, any pretender can. whodathunkit

/sarcasm

[BP2]

Nope, neither you or I, a Judge, a FDE, news anchors, etc, have seen Obama's Birth Certificate. I didn't realize that Reagan's, Clinton's or the Bushs' Eligibility was ever in question.

However, those guys aren't the President right now, are they?

The current POTUS is the son of a British Subject,
pictured below in the burgundy window drape:

[jamese777]

Those are great suggestions. Either a judge or a forensic document examiner needs to look at Obama’s alleged COLB.

---

And that’s exactly what could happen if Obama’s birth documents were to be subpoenaed and presented before a Grand Jury with expert testimony taken under oath.
That is highly unlikely to ever happen in the civil court system.
Hawaii birth records can be released to “a person with a valid court order from a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Hawaii Revised Statutes: 338-18(b)(9)

[PhilDragoo]

[Lmo56]

"Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born," says a new filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.

More importantly, at the time that the Constitution was written, the operative British Law was the British Nationality Act of 1730.

It stated that a child born out of the sovreign's dominion [of a father who was, himself, a naturalborn subject] was also a natural born subject.

The lawyers amongst the founders would have known this, since they were trained in British law. And, consequently, their definition of "natural born citizen" WOULD NOT have included such a child.

[Tex-Con-Man]

Aside from the fact that "all bills he signed into law would be null and void" is completely made up, and has no basis in law, it's also completely unworkable.

Says you...

I have the magic button that will undo the election, all the bills and executive orders.

I'm just waiting until they pass everything to push it.

[edge919]

The statute doesn’t say subpoena, but a court order (there is a difference). Notice too that it gives the department latitude in responding to court orders as being from ‘competent jurisdiction.’ IOW, they could probably ignore out-of-state court orders.

[Quix]

Please, Lord, Give this effort umph that shocks the opposition.

[BP2]

Because of Obama's multiple citizenships and names, he has many options from which to choose if he were ever to be banished from the US for his crimes against America.

Obama would never be a "man without a country."

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

[jamese777]

The statute doesn’t say subpoena, but a court order (there is a difference). Notice too that it gives the department latitude in responding to court orders as being from ‘competent jurisdiction.’ IOW, they could probably ignore out-of-state court orders.

---

A subpoena is one form of a court order.
The statute doesn’t say a HAWAII court of competent jurisdiction. Every state in the union accepts subpoenaes from courts in the other states. Otherwise no one would ever get extradicted.

In any event, it would be nice if someone would at least try this method like 74 plaintiffs have tried civil suits thus far. None have succeeded but folks keep on trying.
I’d like to see someone try the criminal side as well as the civil side.

[Churchillspirit]

The would be “A big f***ing deal”.

[jamese777]

A subpoena is a writ issued by a government agency that has authority to compel testimony by a witness or PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE, the agency most often a court, under a penalty for failure.

There are two common types of subpoena:

subpoena ad testificandum orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment.
subpoena duces tecum orders a person to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment.

Subpoena process
Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case. Additionally, court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court. Typically subpoenas are issued “in blank” and it is the responsibility of the lawyer representing the plaintiff or defendant on whose behalf the testimony is to be given to serve the subpoena on the witness.

The subpoena will usually be on the letterhead of the court where the case is filed, naming the parties to the case, and being addressed by name to the person whose testimony is being sought. It will contain the language “You are hereby commanded to report in person to the clerk of this court” or similar, describing the specific location, scheduled date and time of the appearance. Some issuing jurisdictions include an admonishment advising the subject of the criminal penalty for failure to comply with a subpoena, and reminding him or her not to leave the court facilities until excused by a competent authority. In some situations the person is paid.

Therefore, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino as well as State of Hawaii Registrar of Vital Records, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka both can be subpoenaed and compelled to bring Obama’s original, long form, vault copy birth certificate with them.

Your honor, I rest my case!

[ReignOfError]

no basis in law? really??

Really. Obama was elected by the Electoral College, and the result was certified by Congress. The Constitution does not have a 10th-Season-of-Dallas provision that lets us declare the last year a bad dream.

[edge919]

A court of competent jurisdicition is, in general any court having jurisdiction over the offense being investigated or the persons being investigated. A department or agency can turn down a subpoena if they think the court in question fails to show competent jurisdiction. So far, several officials in Hawaii have been willing to go to bat to keep Obama’s birth records secret. I could this requiring a federal court order before Hawaii would comply, but we know this won’t happen because we know who controls the justice department.

[Red Steel]

Arguing with lil Jamie is equivalent to having a discussion with a recording on loop back. About the only thing that it is good for is for you to express the facts in multiple ways to other readers.

[edge919]

That would be typical of a lot of Obots. You prove them wrong and they call names or repeat flawed claims hoping you’ll back down, I guess.

[jamese777]

A court of competent jurisdicition is, in general any court having jurisdiction over the offense being investigated or the persons being investigated. A department or agency can turn down a subpoena if they think the court in question fails to show competent jurisdiction. So far, several officials in Hawaii have been willing to go to bat to keep Obama’s birth records secret. I could this requiring a federal court order before Hawaii would comply, but we know this won’t happen because we know who controls the justice department.

---

DEFINITION OF “ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION”
A subpoena signed by a clerk of a Federal or State court, without specific approval of the court itself, does not comprise an “order of a court of competent jurisdiction” for purposes of nonconsensual disclosures under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). The overall scheme of the Privacy Act’s nonconsensual disclosure provisions in subsection (b) is to balance the need for disclosure against the potential harm to the subject of the disclosure. Even though a subpoena signed by a clerk of the court is issued in the name of the court and carries with it the threat of contempt to those who ignore it, there is no guarantee that it is based upon a careful consideration of the competing interests of the litigant and the individual who is the subject of the record. It is common practice for a subpoena to be issued in blank by a court clerk to a party requesting it, who then fills in the blanks as he or she chooses.

To allow nonconsensual disclosure pursuant to a subpoena—grand jury or otherwise-–would permit disclosure of protected records at the whim of any litigant, whether prosecutor, criminal defendant, or civil litigant. Therefore, disclosure of records under subsection (b)(11) requires that the court specifically order disclosure. If there is a threat of punishment for contempt for ignoring a subpoena not approved by the court, the subpoena should be challenged by a motion to quash or modify.

Therefore, any prosecuting attorney who can convince any state or federal judge to issue a subpoena would constitute a “court of competent jurisdiction.”
The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice has no political control over state or federal judges.

[sten]

no... but if the president were found to be ineligible to hold office, he would be ejected. (as a bonus, since he is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar... he would have known of his ineligibility and would therefore be guilty of committing fraud)

once ejected, the Constitutional crisis would begin (which could have been one of their contingency plans all along)

just because judges have been covering for him does not make the requirement go away. on top of that, no length of time would improve his eligibility, thereby nullifying your thought that since he wasn’t ‘outed’ before the ballots were printed... he is above the requirements. there is no statement to that effect in the Constitution. it also does not state that only the opposing candidates can bring grievance.

injury to the Constitution by not upholding its basic tenets would be of concern to ALL Americans, as the document itself was written for ALL Americans... and not just a handful of potomac wannabees.

on top of that... i would state that since the Constitution does not have a survivability claus, and since Article II is obviously being disregard... the entire Constitution is being rendered null and void. and if this were the case, why should Americans follow amendment 16?

the basic contract has been thrown out... either rectify the situation, or suffer the consequences. it is not a pick & choose document. all or nothing.

[edge919]

This doesn’t say anything about whether a court is considered to have competent jurisdiction or not. What you cited says a court (or judge) has to specifically sign off on a subpoena in order to force the release of nonconsensual reords, and that a prosecutor can’t do so on independently, which undercuts a claim you made earlier.

As for having competent jurisdiction, a local court in Indiana or New York or Arizona could potentially be deemed NOT to have such in a criminal case against the president, since Congress is the only body that can impeach a president. As far as an investigation by the justice department would be concerned, it would have to be ordered by the executive, most likely because of a Congressional request. But we know that won’t happen because we know who controls the justice department and Congress (at the moment).