Posted on 01/11/2013 4:44:07 AM PST by voicereason
On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9. As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court's decision to review Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State. On Feb. 15, all nine justices will hear arguments on whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void. Continued at source....
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The SCOTUS decisons that support the political question doctrine go back to the founding of our Country — long before the start of the Republican Party. This is less partisan than you may want to think.
The sec of state are charged with qualifying candidates to be on the ballot. That gives them the authority and responsibility to ask for evidence and verification.
Thanks for making my point. As I stated earlier, the political question doctrine prohibits the SCOTUS from reviewing policy decisions as to what constitutes proof of eligibility (as opposed to eligibility, itself). If you don't like the policy, then either (a) amend the Constitution to define what constitutes a politicsl/policy question; or (b) amend state or federal law with respect to the standard and/or procedure for challenging eligibility.
The sec of state are charged with qualifying candidates to be on the ballot. That gives them the authority and responsibility to ask for evidence and verification.
Thanks for making my point. As I stated earlier, the political question doctrine prohibits the SCOTUS from reviewing policy decisions as to what constitutes proof of eligibility (as opposed to eligibility, itself). If you don't like the policy, then either (a) amend the Constitution to define what constitutes a politicsl/policy question; or (b) amend state or federal law with respect to the standard and/or procedure for challenging eligibility.
Tepper and Begley are the attorneys representing all of the named defendants in Mississippi, Obama is a named defendant.
You are correct that both Orly Taitz and Begley and Tepper are using the whitehouse.gov image of the long form as exhibits in this lawsuit.
The only difference is that the defense exhibit comes with a certified Letter of Verification from Hawaii.
Obama's counsel is Perkins and Coie. Obama is named, but so are individuals such as Nancy Pelosi, Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., Loretta Fuddy and others. I'm pretty sure those individuals who are out of state are not being directly represented by the MDEC's lawyers. If they were, then they could get an actual hard copy of Obama's LFBC and not a copy of PDF posted on a website with a vague letter of verification that lists no birth facts on it.
Nothing is “prohibited” by the political doctrine question. This “doctrine” is a legal invention that doesn’t even exist within the Constitution. It’s just an excuse for the Courts to avoid an issue they don’t want to get involved in. Also, when you say they can’t decide what “consitutes proof of eligiblity,” this is an equally ridiculous assertion. The Supreme Court LOVES to make ways to decide metrics.
Let’s look for example at the First Amendment which says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The Supreme Court took it upon itself to INVENT a test for what constitutes the establishment of religion. So here we have a specific phrase from the Constitution being evaluated with arbitrary metrics invented by the Supreme Court.
IOW, this can be done just as well with the eligibility clause, and the SCOTUS has already defined natural-born citizen, so it should be no problem to come up with a standard way to prove how someone meets that definition. After all, they invented standards of proof for other types of citizenship cases. They can do it here too.
Yes, this is too good to be true. Too bad it’s not someone competent like Mario Apuzzo. Orly has lots of guts and tenacity, but no organizational or litigation skills.
Here’s what I think is happening: Roberts chose Taitz’s case because he knows she is incompetent and can easily be dismissed. Then SCOTUS can say, “Enough of these eligibility cases; we already ruled on that issue.” This case will be put to a mercifully fast death and the door will be closed to every other litigant seeking a ruling on eligibility or the definition of “natural born citizen.”
Definitely not in this lawsuit (and not in any case that I can recall since 2008 or 2009, but I may be wrong on that.)
Obama is named, but so are individuals such as Nancy Pelosi, Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., Loretta Fuddy and others. I'm pretty sure those individuals who are out of state are not being directly represented by the MDEC's lawyers.
The MDEC's lawyers are also representing Obama. I'm not sure about the other federal defendants; many of them have not appeared in the Mississippi case because Orly hasn't managed to serve them. The Hawai'i officials have hired their own lawyers.
If they were, then they could get an actual hard copy of Obama's LFBC and not a copy of PDF posted on a website with a vague letter of verification that lists no birth facts on it.
The case hasn't gotten to discovery yet, so no one has been required to produce anything. The MDEC lawyers did offer a letter of verification from Hawai'i-- not of the Birth Certificate, which they claim is irrelevant (no statute says a presidential candidate has to produce a b.c.), but of the birth facts-- that Obama was born in Hawai'i in 1961.
I would submit that even if SCOTUS demanded the BC and found there is fraud, SCOTUS would let him off, and the Senate would give him a pass. They would excuse it.
We have hit the tipping point. There is no going back.
The only question is when and how it ends. Will it all blow up in a month, or will it be a slow grind for several years.
I tend to think we will see it blow up. Debt will start to accelerate, like a run away truck on a mountain. We slam into the trees. Then riots begin. Then marshal law and curfews.
Until then, I need to be happy. When it comes, I just want a nice bottle of irish whiskey and a pile of ammo. I also want a pistol to end it when I run out of ammo. They won’t put me in a cage.
Thanks.
Here is what I sent:
Dear Mr. Malloy:
Hawai state registrar Alvin Onaka issued a letter of verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett which indirectly confirms that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery to hide that fact.
Hawaii Revised Statute 338-14.3 requires the HI Dept of Health to provide a verification of the existence of a birth certificate and any other information provided to be verified if it can be certified that the birth really happened that way. Birth certificates are legally declared to be prima facia (”on its face”) evidence and the claims are legally presumed to be true unless the birth certificate was completed a year or more after the birth or major changes have been made to the core claims. Late and altered birth certificates have no probative value unless and until they are presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative official or body and the probative value is determined. (See HRS 338-17)
So if information is submitted to be verified, the registrar checks the claims against what is in their records. If the claim is found on a valid record the registrar is legally required to verify that information to the requestor. If the submitted information is not found on a valid record, the registrar CANNOT verify the information.
AZ SOS Ken Bennett submitted 2 pages of requests for verification regarding Obama’s birth record. The first was the actual application, where he asked Onaka to verify male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama. On the second page Bennett noted that enclosed application and asked that Onaka verify some other information “from the birth record”, IN ADDITION TO verifying the information requested in the application form. Bennett also asked Onaka to verify that the image posted on the White House website was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.
Onaka responded by verifying the existence of a birth certificate for Obama “indicating” (which legally speaking means “claims”) a Honolulu birth. He would NOT verify Oahu as the island of birth, male as the gender, Aug 4, 1961 as the date, Stanley Ann Dunham as the mother, or Barack Hussein Obama as the father. By statute the only reason for him to not verify any of those claims is if he CAN’T, because they are not claimed on a legally valid record.
If Onaka’s mention of Honolulu was verification of the true city of birth, he would also have to verify that Oahu was the true island of birth. But he didn’t. His use of the word Honolulu is therefore known to not be a verification of Honolulu as the real city of birth, but only the CLAIM that is on the birth certificate whose existence Onaka is verifying. He thus didn’t verify ANY of the claims submitted on the application form, since Honolulu was the only word from the application which was even MENTIONED in the verification.
Onaka also would not verify that the White House image was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.” Instead, he verified something he was not asked to verify: that the information contained in the White House image “matched” the original record. Later, KS SOS Kris Kobach would ask Onaka to verify that the information contained in the White House image was “identical to” the information contained in the original record, and Onaka would not verify that. So the information that’s actually on the White House image “matches” the HDOH record, but the information as a whole is not “identical to” the information in the HDOH record. IOW, the White House image is not a true and accurate representation of the original record, and the information in the White House image is not “identical to” the information in the original record. But the claims that are on the White House image are what is on the HDOH record.
Since the White House image claims male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama, those claims are also on the HDOH record. That means that the only lawful reason for Onaka to refuse to verify those claims is if the HDOH record itself is non-valid (late and/or altered).
“Late” and “altered” would have to be stamped on the birth certificate in such a case, as well as a notation of the evidence submitted for a late filing and/or alteration - which would explain why the information is not “identical” (the HDOH record contains information that isn’t on the White House image) and why both the short-form and long-form birth certificates had to be forged even though the claims on the forgery are the same claims as on the real record (to get rid of the notations showing the record is non-valid).
Because Bennett asked for additional items to be verified “from the original record”, Onaka must have interpreted the request to be that he verify that those claims are what is ON “the original record”. And those things ARE what is claimed on the record, which is what he verified.
TPM Muckraker published ONE of the 2 request pages, and AZ Central published the letter of verification that Bennett received. Neither source published the whole request and neither source looked up the Hawaii statutes to understand what rules Onaka had to follow. Because of that, they (and the entire rest of the media) reported the exact opposite of what Onaka actually confirmed through that letter of verification. It was reported that Onaka had verified Obama’s birth facts, but in fact he refused to verify them and in so doing, confirmed that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is non-valid and the White House image is a forgery hiding the signs of non-validity.
Attorney Larry Klayman sent by courier (4 days before the DNC Convention began) a letter to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer, informing him of these facts. That letter contains the exact wording of the statutes as well as the complete request and response, and can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf .
The Arizona Tea Party pressured Bennett to ask for the verification he was entitled to receive. He asked Onaka to verify Obama’s core birth facts (including birth date, birth city and island, and parents - which are critical to Presidential eligibility) and Onaka certified his response showing that Onaka CANNOT verify those facts. Obama has no legally-established birth facts. There is no way ANYBODY can lawfully certify that he is eligible to serve as President without a legal determination of where, when, and to whom Obama was born. Bob Bauer suborned perjury when he counseled Germond and Villagairosa to sign the Official Certification of Nomination which Bauer knew to be fraudulent and perjurious. And Bob Bauer committed election fraud when he knowingly submitted the fraudulent/perjurious OCON to nearly every state SOS in order to get Obama’s name on the ballot. To this day we have no idea when, where, or to whom Obama was really born.
The only way that Obama’s birth facts can be legally-established (which is necessary, if he is to “qualify” by Jan 20th as required by the 20th Amendment) is by a judicial procedure in which the non-valid BC is presented as evidence and subjected to the Federal Rules of Evidence. That is exactly what we “birthers” have wanted to happen all along, and Hawaii statute agrees with us. Right now the burden of proof falls on OBAMA, not on the “birthers”. The legal presumption at this point is that the claims on the non-valid BC are NOT true, because the record itself would not be filed late and would not need to have major amendments if Obama was really born at Kapiolani as claimed.
The verification is a sworn disclosure from Onaka, indirectly confirming that what the “birthers” have wondered is actually the legal fact: Obama has no legally-valid birth certificate from Hawaii. This explains why the HDOH altered their 1960-64 birth index to include legally non-valid records (as I’ve documented on my blog; see http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/birth-index-includes-nonvalid-records-_documentation-included_.pdf ).
Discrepancies in the numbering of Obama’s BC and at least 3 others reveals other unlawful alteration of records by the HDOH itself. (See http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bc-number-manipulation-analysis.pdf ) At least 4 BC numbers that were on records in 1961 have been switched to be on a DIFFERENT record. The only lawful authorization for a different BC number to be assigned to a birth certificate after 1961 is if a new, totally fabricated birth certificate is created for somebody because law enforcement (Eric Holder?) claims the person’s life would be in danger if a new BC wasn’t created claiming something different than reality. In such a case, the HDOH would create a BC that says whatever law enforcement (Eric Holder?) says it must say.
Because the HDOH has a BC# for Obama’s record that could not have been on his original BC in 1961 (based on either of the 2 numbering methods described by Hawaii officials), it is almost certain that law enforcement forced the HDOH to create a fictitious BC for Obama that says whatever they (Eric Holder?) wanted it to say.
So the HDOH has revealed that the record they have for Obama is not legally valid, and the claims on the White House image match a totally fictitious BC that law enforcement (Eric Holder?) forced the HDOH to create based on their claim that “birthers” like me would kill Obama if a fake BC was not created for him at the HDOH.
A VERY revealing disclosure that the entire media was too smugly superior to even notice.
I will be happy to accept your public apology when you issue it.
In the meantime, there is no legally-valid BC for Obama that claims ANY of the following: male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, or Barack Hussein Obama.
We literally have NO IDEA where, when, or to whom Obama was born. There is no way he can “qualify” by Jan 20th.
butterdezillion
No. MDEC never asked Hawaii to verify that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. They were very careful to NOT ask the birth facts to be verified, and to not ask for the White House image to be verified as genuine.
The 2 things they specifically said were at stake in the lawsuit, and they were very careful never to ask verification of those things.
All they would ask is for verification that a BC for Obama exists and that the information contained on the White House image “matches” the information contained on the HDOH’s BC (which they knew to have been verified as non-valid).
They know that the information on a $3 bill matches the information on any other $3 bill, even though neither one is worth a thing. So they didn’t ask if the White House $3 bill was worth anything; they only asked if the information on it matched the information on the HDOH’s $3 bill.
The MDEC request was what made me realize that Onaka’s confirmation of a non-valid record is legally blatant - since even the attorneys arguing on Obama’s behalf acknowledged it through their actions.
The motions filed by the legal team only represent the MDEC, and the letter to Hawaii, requesting a Letter of Verification specifically says the lawyers are representing the MDEC, and says NOTHING about representing Obama himself. If they were representing Obama, they shouldn't need to contact the HI DOH for a letter of verification; they could just get one of Obama's TWO hard copies of his alleged LFBC.
The case hasn't gotten to discovery yet, so no one has been required to produce anything.
Discovery is irrelevant. They've already filed a letter of verification and a printout of the PDF. They could have simply provided one of the two hard copies of Obama's alleged LFBC, which would be more legally compelling, since a legitimate certified LFBC is considered self-authenticating.
The MDEC lawyers did offer a letter of verification from Hawai'i-- not of the Birth Certificate, which they claim is irrelevant (no statute says a presidential candidate has to produce a b.c.), but of the birth facts-- that Obama was born in Hawai'i in 1961.
No statute says they have to offer a letter of verification and a printout of a PDF of an alleged LFBC, but they submitted one. Again, they COULD haved simply submitted one of the TWO alleged hard copies of the LFBC. Why settle for a vague letter of verification when there's a self-authenticating certified document available?? /i
We render unto Ceaser, what is Ceasers.
John Adams said there was never a Democracy that did not commit suicide.
So this really is the nature of men and power. We were simply lucky to be in the oasis of freedom while it lasted.
So we were blessed.
Now is the time to look them in the face and laugh, as they drive the titanic into the iceberg. When I tell them what they have done and laugh at them, I see the fear on their faces, and this gives me the greatest satisfaction. They will not see me angry or blue. They will see me pour the brandy and gaze at the stars, smiling, with clear conscience . I want them to know they sank the ship, long before we go down.
This is a pre-trial dispositive motion that includes exhibits for the judge to take under advisement.
Attorneys Begley and Tepper have asked Judge Wingate to dismiss the Taitz lawsuit on the pleadings. We’ll all have to wait and see how Judge Wingate rules.
If the lawsuit isn’t dismissed, it will move to a discovery/evidence phase where introducing best evidence would be appropriate for both plaintiffs and defendants.
Orly Taitz has file a motion for a writ of mandamus with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A copy is at her website.
These are the attorneys that Dr. Taitz believes are representing the various defendants:
MDEC - Begley and Tepper
Obama - Begley and Tepper
Obama for America - Begley and Tepper
Nancy Pelosi - Begley and Tepper
SoS of Mississippi - Pizzetta and Matheny (MS AG’s office)
Dr. Onaka - Walter Drake (hired by the Hawaii AG’s office)
Dr. Fuddy - Walter Drake (hired by the Hawaii AG’s office)
Michael Astrue - none listed (may not have been served properly)
Jane Does - none listed
John Does 1-100 - none listed
Comments in parentheses are mine.
BTW and FWIW - For the SCOTUS to grant a motion to stay, it takes five Justices to vote for the motion not four like for a writ of certiorari.
Blah Blah Blah.....
All I know is that since 1998 several capable attorneys on our side, using various legal strategies, have attempted to convince different courts to hear the eligibility issue on its merits.... Each and every time there is some complex technical reason sited why the case can not go forward. The judges just find a way to dismiss it. So one of two things is correct; either the system itself is flawed and by default conspires against justice or the system is being manipulated by clever political hacks with an agenda. I tend to believe the later. Using complex legal technicalities to avoid hearing an issue in court can and is almost always argued. However, most times the case goes forward, a ruling is made and the technical issues are dealt with later on appeal. All we want is our day in court!!! Please
“”””I also want a pistol to end it when I run out of ammo. They won’t put me in a cage.””””
I understand your pessimism and you may be right. However,all this is written and predicted more than 2000 years ago. we are told to have faith hate sin and love righteousness. Most importantly, that there is a place waiting for us. So let God be the one to take you home at the time he chooses.
And all the while, the judges do blatant things, like Robertson ruling to Hemenway that thousands of dollars did not meet the $500 threshold (not enough is at stake in Obama’s illegal usurpation) and then saying Obama’s eligibility has already been decided on Twitter... like Judge Carter hiring an aide from the company representing Obama in the middle of a court case against Obama and right before totally reversing his manner and everything he had previously said.... like Judge Malihi deciding a case based on “judge’s knowledge” because no evidence was offered - and then refusing to certify the results so Obama’s contempt of court could not be charged to him and his lawyers.... like the judge in FL telling Klayman that even though he has standing the case will be dismissed because Obama has been “acting as President” for the last 3+ years... like Kagan and Sotomayor refusing to recuse themselves from a case in which their own jobs were at stake.... like SCOTUS deciding that the eligibility of the man who would hold the nuclear football is not as important as whether manufacturers put sugar in drinks... like the appeals court in GA (after Malihi) not allowing the plaintiff to file papers and the appeals judge finally ruling on a motion the plaintiff had not yet been allowed by the support staff to make...
It is very, very clear that the system has been taken over by thugs. Probably using the same Soros threats that got Roger Ailes to tell his employees that he would get people to kill or injure them if they reported on Obama’s eligibility (and it wasn’t FCC or FEC annihilation as Ailes claimed to his people, because simply reporting the threat to Bush’s FBI/DOJ could have eliminated that threat).
The judges’ actions are maddening, but I believe they are intended to be so, as red flags to tell the world that they are acting under duress. No legitimate lawyer in the country would accept these behaviors; they are the behaviors for a banana republic, not a free country. Any lawyer who accepts the above behaviors is instantly recognized as part of the mafia that enabled this coup. It’s really that simple.
I have one last thing to do before I can know my conscience is clear: give law enforcement all they need to put Bob Bauer, Chiyome Fukino, Loretta Fuddy, Joe Miller, Jess Hennig, Bob Gibbs, Nancy Pelosi, etc behind bars for life (if not given the death penalty), and then watch as every level of law enforcement betrays the rule of law. Then I can know that I warned them all; the bloodguilt is on them, not me.
I already warned Congress, and the secretaries who threw away my fax are just as guilty as if they had thrown away a credible, actionable warning that Washington DC was going to be blown up on a specific day. When (not if) the country is destroyed by this legally-acknowledged foreign enemy combatant, those secretaries will have a lot to answer for. The guilt will be on them, not me.
The guilt will be on Rep. Adrian Smith and Sen. Mike Johanns, because they received the warning and refused to act.
I was recently up most the night as one of my kids tried to talk a friend out of suicide and eventually called the cops to make sure the friend made it through the night. The friend makes the choice to live or die, but knowledge brings responsibility, and the thought of a friend dying when you could have prevented it was more than my child wanted to live with forever. It’s not a decision to be made flippantly. But I think it was made very flippantly by these secretaries, and they will eventually regret it, when it’s too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.