Obama’s forgery case was submitted to Judges DOROTHY W. NELSON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, N. RANDY SMITH

10/20/2015

[Elderberry]

Obama’s forgery case was submitted to Judges DOROTHY W. NELSON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON and N. RANDY SMITH for decision. Two of the judges were appointed by George W. Bush and 1 by Jimmy Carter. It might be good for us or may mean nothing if the court decided to look the other way and ignore all of Obama’s stolen and forged IDs

The following transaction was entered on 10/20/2015 at 12:34:36 PM PDT and filed on 10/20/2015 Case Name: James Grinols, et al v. Electoral College, et al Case Number: 13-16359

[DiogenesLamp]

reached the exact same conclusions on eligibility as the courts reached.

A poisoned root bears poisoned fruit. All of these people no doubt got their legal advice from that same poisoned root. It is no surprise that they are wrong en masse.

Most legal minds just follow popular fallacy, and very few ever bother to research this issue for themselves. Those that do tend to want to follow the same non-sequitur ruts as the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which had an even smaller majority than the "Separate but equal" Plessy v Ferguson decision by that same court.

They do a lot of mental gymnastics to get around obvious flaws in their understanding, but then they aren't really trying to understand, instead they are merely justifying whatever it is they have already decided to believe.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, and this same group of people will also follow the court's on "Gay Marriage."

That they blindly follow is no great surprise. There are few independent or even accurate thinkers in that bunch.

[Nero Germanicus]

Now you’re just being silly and arguing just for the sake of argument.

[hoosiermama]

Also the money inherited from Charles Rolo Payne after his 1968 demise
Check out schedule E of taxes. He is still receiving income from family trust
Probate was probably about December of 1971 when his grandmother (executor of estate) was promoted to VP/head of Trust-Escrow Dept ; became 0 legal guardian —enrolled 0 in expensive private school, moved to penthouse

Payne made his fortune by writing land leases to the mineral rights under Kansas and Oklahoma farm land. Because money was short the common method of pay was to receive one tenth of one percent of revenue from Wells’s production.
There were also wells on the property the family owned. Two wells that may be connected Stanley A and Stanley D are still in production
A good reason not to back Keystone ???

[hoosiermama]

Remember this?
http://americannews.com/obamas-own-grandmother-comes-forward-to-make-this-shocking-admission/

[DiogenesLamp]

Now you’re just being silly and arguing just for the sake of argument.

Not at all. I am relating exactly what I've seen. We have plenty of historical documents and citations demonstrating that the Normal understanding of "natural born citizen" did not rely exclusively on birth in the nation, but instead upon allegiance as determined by the nationality of the Father.

We have plenty of historical documents demonstrating that certain activists (Predominately Rawle) made every effort to obfuscate this rational understanding to advance their political causes. (Abolition)

We understand that the 14th amendment was an example of where they accidentally, or perhaps deliberately, obfuscated the issue to advance the cause of Birth Citizenship for freed Black Slaves. We see where the Wong Kim Ark, (The Gray court, 5 Republicans and one Liberal Democrat against the Democrats on the Court) was used to advance a political agenda, and further obfuscated the original understanding of the term.

And we see subsequently where other legal minds, erroneously extending the Wong Kim Ark ruling far beyond it's intent, (Permanent residency required) has now created "Anchor Babies", "Birth Tourists", and now an Illegitimate President. (Who has made an utter muck of everything he's touched.)

No, the entire legal system has been deliberately misinformed from a very early time, and mostly to advance the political agenda of certain individuals in history.

And what is the fatal flaw in the "jus soli" understanding of the modern legal system? How several millions of slaves and Indians, as well as several thousands of the children of British Loyalists, are "exceptions" to the rule.

If it were the actual rule, there could not possibly be so many exceptions. That it was the rule is a fiction which people have bought into because it advanced their political cause at the time.

[Nero Germanicus]

If you could find a member of Congress, a governor, a state legislator, a member of a state elections board, or a judge to champion that historical analysis/ legal theory, you’d be cooking with gas.

[LucyT]

.

Check out # 64 about inherited money, then see link at # 65, ... which states in part:

A new and controversial audio recording of Barack Obama’s grandmother Sarah could be the missing piece of evidence needed to get some answers about our president’s background.

The interview was reportedly conducted in 2008, before Obama had won office. In other words, this was before Obama had the chance to condition his grandmother to lie about his true identity. Instead, the recording shows Sarah admitting that her grandson was born in Kenya.

Of course, in later interviews Sarah backtracks on these statements.

Thanks, hoosiermama.

[DiogenesLamp]

In plain English, what you mean is “Why don’t you just go along with the fallacy of popularity?”

[Nero Germanicus]

In plain English: “Its good to have allies.”

[MortMan]

You’re confusing Logical with his (or her) cousin, Grammatical Me! ;-P

[DiogenesLamp]

In plain English: “Its good to have allies.”

This can be taken several ways, but I think your meaning here is that a path forward lies in convincing these people of the error of past legal opinion.

Well sure. Just give me many billions of dollars worth of existing media infrastructure, total control of schools, especially law schools, and we will get right on that project.

In human history, often times some ideas become so heavily entrenched in people's minds, that they cannot be dislodged easily or quickly.

Slavery, for example. Look how long it took to convince people that it was bad.

[David]

In his earlier campaigns for Congress and state Legislative body, as well as early in his campaign for the US Senate, Barry in the White House published his bio and other campaign documents, spoke at fund raising events, and met voters and campaign workers at coffee hour events, in all of which he stated and authorized publication of documents asserting his birth in Kenya.

From the lawyer's perspective, we have rules of evidence. One of those rules is that statements by a party against the interest he represents in a controversy are evidence--in some jurisdictions as exceptions to the hearsay rules; in others such statements are evidence outright.

Lucy's point about hoosiermama's post #65 is well taken--it too is evidence he was born in Kenya.

There is no other "evidence" of his place of birth other than Kenya. As everyone recognizes, the "birth certificates" are fraudulent forgeries.

However in a legal contest, a court would come down on the answer that he was born in Kenya, absent persuasive evidence of greater weight to the contrary.

Several consequences flow from that state of affairs.

If he was born anywhere outside the United States, his mother needed to be a US Citizen and meet certain other criteria under our Citizenship Law or he was not a citizen at the time of his birth--which obviously would preclude him from meeting the Natural Born Citizen eligibility requirement of Article II, Sec. 1 of the US Constitution, whatever else that requirement might mean.

So if Stanley Ann Dunham was his mother, his father Barack H. Obama Sr., a non citizen, Barry in the White House would have been a citizen when he was born only if Stanley Ann, his mother, had been a resident of the United States for five years after her 14th birthday.

Since Stanley was only 18 when he was born, on those facts, Barry in the White House would not have been a US Citizen when born and could not have met the Article II, Sec. 1 test for eligibility to hold the office of President.

We have abundant Supreme Court law to the affect that eligibility to an office is different from procedural error in getting there--a person who is not eligible to an office does not hold the office even if he is procedurally installed as the office holder.

The taint of Barry's condition will extend long after he is out of office and is grounds to invalidate any of his acts which required a President to perform--appoint Supreme Court justices for example.

Another example is bills passed by Congress which adjourns shortly after passage--absent signature by a "President", those bills are pocket veto'ed by adjournment.

Note also that this problem will continue to follow Barry even if he was born, not in Kenya, but in some other country outside the United States if his mother was either Stanley Ann, or, for example, a British Citizen born in Egypt with her primary residence in London, even if his father was in fact a US Citizen.

[Elderberry]

And also, wouldn’t he have been unable to serve if he hadn’t registered for Selective Service?

[Elderberry]

I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2037867/posts?page=86#86

To: goldstategop
“If Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, then where was he born?”

Kenya.

There purports to be a Guardian interview over two years ago with the “grandmother” and two half-siblings in which they claim to have been present at his birth in Kenya.

Today’s news at gaywired.com quoting an update to a Wayne Madsen report is that an investigative team researching Obama’s history in Africa has found “a certificate registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. to his father, a Kenyan citizen, and mother, an American citizen” in Mombasa.

There is an extensive thread earlier this week documenting the deficiencies in the Hawaii Birth Certificate argument. The Certificate actually posted by the Obama campaign is clearly fraudulent on its face.

No witnesses have appeared in connection with a widely publicized claimed birth in 1961. There is no hospital record of the claimed birth. News media of the era published birth records as vital statistics—Obama’s birth does not appear. One of the hospitals claimed as a birth location was built after the claimed birth date.

The legal on this question works like this. The US Constitution says specifically that to be eligible to be elected President of the US, a person must be a “natural born” US citizen.

There has been significant discussion about citizenship statutes which provide that a person born outside the US to two US citizens becomes a citizen at birth without a naturalization proceeding; another provision is that a person born outside the US with a single US citizen parent (and a non-citizen parent) becomes a citizen at birth without a naturalization proceeding but only if the US parent had resided in the US for ten years prior to the birth, at least five of which ten years were after such US parent had reached the age of 21.

Obama’s only claim under the naturalization statute would fail because his mother, only 18 when he was born, could not, by definition, have met the five years after 21 requirement. Absent a naturalization proceeding, if he were born outside the US, Obama may not even be a US Citizen at all.

Constitutional historical documents make it clear that the drafters (natural born citizen) meant born in the actual territory of the US.

As pointed out by Ted Olson in a legal memo addressed to the John McCain citizenship issue, the Constitutional requirement is not subject to definition by Congress—the “natural born citizen” requirement is a Constitutional question—the fact that a person might qualify to avoid naturalization is irrelevant.

As Olson pointed out, even the McCain qualification is in doubt. Sure, Senator McCain is a citizen under the naturalization statutes. But that has no bearing on the question of whether he meets the Constitutional test which in my own view, he does not.

If this issue ever gets to the table, assuming the facts demonstrate that Obama was born in Kenya, in my opinion, neither one of the presumed nominees meets the Constitutional qualification requirement.
86 posted on 6/28/2008, 3:32:49 PM by David (...)

[LucyT]

.

Back to the thread.

Check out # 73 , and # 75 .

Thanks David.

[hoosiermama]

We must remember it was way before 2008 that the Freeper who had been a missionary in Kenya told us in great detail of his birth there. Our original research was an attempt to get documentation that would stand up in court to support her memory.
We were stymied by material disappearing before out eyes and not having the resources or means to check out the Kenyan Records in the British Archives at Oxford.
Then others joined the hunt and started presenting theories that had nothing to do with our mission. They not only hijacked the original goals but added to the “crazies “ attitude

[Fred Nerks]

thanks for the ping...

[Elderberry]

Yes. If it wasn’t for all those other Freepers with their outlandish ideas. Not to mention all those feeble attempts by those supposed lawyers; Berg, Martin, Apuzzo, Taitz, Donofrio, Keyes&Robinson, Ankeny&Kruse, Hendershot, Epperly, Allen, Kreep, Klayman, and all the others! What did they think they would accomplish?

[bgill]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2491680/posts

There is also the Kenyan Parliament’s statement, “how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?”