Has 'standing' been created in hunt for Obama birth doc ?

WND ^ | July 08, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[RobinMasters]

A decision by Judges Dolores Sloviter, Maryanne Trump Barry and Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may have opened the door to questions on the record about President Obama's birth documentation and eligibility to be president, according to an attorney in the case.

The judges' opinion recently dismissed as "frivolous" an appeal of a lower court decision throwing out questions about whether the British Nationality Act of 1948 made Obama, at his birth to an American mother and Kenyan father, a subject of the British crown, thus possibly making him ineligible under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."

The case filed was against Obama, Congress and others, just before Obama was sworn into office, arguing that Obama was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.

"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 lawsuit claimed.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo represented Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

[little jeremiah]

Thecodont, you were nicer than me!

Butterdezillion has a blog wherein she explains everything in connection with the crimes going on in the HI DOH. She may know the url of a blog that has all kinds of info about the birth announcments. They are most certainly faked. For many reasons. And even if they weren’t, they were not at that time sent by the state, since more babies were born than were announced in the papers. So someone called or wrote in to put that announcement in (if it was there at the time, which is very debatable).

So far, no original newspaper has turned up, that anyone knows about. I am sure and certain that if 0thugga’s team had an original paper showing those announcements, we would have seen it.

[butterdezillion]

Actually they were doctored up (very badly) at the Honolulu Advertiser office in 2008. And by “badly” I mean they left fingerprints, had scratches that disappeared over time, microfilm copies that were supposed to be professionally produced had all kinds of damage all over them, and a lot of other mistakes that they made when they replaced the library microfilms with the microfilm forgeries in every library we have photocopies from.

The last information I need before posting the whole story is supposedly in the mail to me. I’ll believe it when I see it; I’ve seen too much from the crooks in Hawaii. But there should soon be a posting wherein I document all the above and more.

The birth announcements don’t mean anything legally - especially since the authorities and reporters deliberately deceived the public into thinking those announcements came from the Hawaii DOH. They didn’t; the HDOH was not even authorized to release that information until 1976. I investigated the issue because I wanted to see whether Obama’s people would really go so far as to try to rewrite history. They did that and worse, and I’ve got the documentation to show that.

[butterdezillion]

Who has standing to sue if a president is thought to have done something forbidden by the Constitution?

For instance, if the president ordered torture and it was believed to be against the Constitution, who would have standing to bring the Constitutionality of the action before SCOTUS? Could anybody besides a person subsequently tortured do so? Could Congress do so? Who would have “standing”?

If anybody knows who all the legal eagles are here, can you ping them? Or if you’re a legal eagle, I’d really like to know the answer to this.

[TheThinker]

I understood your point. It's just that Obama is about the coldest jerk I've ever seen. At least Castro is colorful. And I wouldn't mind Bibi.

I'd love to see Vaclav Klaus, who is a GW skeptic and Hayek disciple, currently president of the Chzech Republic as our president.