Posted on 07/20/2013 12:54:48 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
There have been many lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President—most based on the fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen, his father being a Kenyan. Other lawsuits challenge the validity of Obama’s PDF long-form birth certificate, riddled with strange anomalies like multiple layers and eight different fonts.
The lawsuits have all crashed and burned in flames for two reasons: 1. The court hearing the lawsuits have treated the cases as a joke instead of a valid question of Constitutional requirements. And 2. The plaintiffs haven’t had Reed Hayes on their side.
Reed Hayes is a forensic document expert who may be the man who finally brings down the Obama administration.
In an extensive and scathing forty page report on Obama’s birth certificate prepared for the upcoming eligibility lawsuit before the Alabama Supreme Court, Hayes concludes the following:
…Based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources. In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.
You might be saying: Okay, there has been something like two dozens lawsuits. They’ve all failed. The court and Obama’s lawyers always deem any experts against Obama’s birth certificate as quacks. So what’s different this time?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/document-expert-could-topple-the-obama-administration/#comments
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
*
I dont know about that. I’ll put on the tin foil hat and throw this out....
Obama may be planning to get thrown out of office for a forged BC. It may be necessary for him to allow this to happen, to make this happen to get the final straw to break the camels back and start a war in thic country whereby his armed DHS and IRS could take acation againse the citizens of the US.
Couldn't agree with you more. DC as a whole has absolutely NO clue what it means to be an average American today, none. DC is booming and awash with $$$ while a very sizable chunk of the rest of the country rots and withers away.
where have you been - need to get out of mommy’s basement ~
impeachment only for (real) presidents ~
maroon
I found it interesting, after watching the video, that Obama never looked up at the camera. Always looked down. Then he said the most remarkable thing...that was me 35 years ago...Mr president, are you saying you were/still are a thug?
Liberals in particular are very susceptible to having their behavior modified out of pusillanimous fear of blacks.
I think Larry Sinclair would say that Obama liked doing something else "down" on white people.
5.56mm
I see that word “maroon” tossed around a lot on this site. What does it mean to you?
I just added one. Begins with “t”.
You and I know it as a color, but someone just called me a maroon as an epithet, so I asked for his definition.
Some confusion there. First, the Alabama Supreme Court is not going to hear any witnesses. Appellate courts don’t do that; they decide questions of law.
The question of law before the Alabama Supreme Court is whether or not the Alabaman Secretary of State Chapman has a duty to investigate the eligibility of candidates for office in Alabama. Chapman says she doesn’t, and the original trial court and a court of appeal agreed. The question of Obama’s eligibility is not before the Alabama Supreme Court, despite attempts to argue that in plaintiffs’ briefs and the amicus brief from the Alabama Democratic Party.
The only way this goes to the US Supreme Court is if McInnish LOSES (your hopes in Roy Moore notwithstanding) and the Alabama Supreme Court affirms that Chapman had no duty to investigate candidates. McInnish could appeal but if he can’t win in Alabama with Roy Moore on the bench, how could you expect him to win before the US Supreme Court?
It is hard to see how the US Supreme Court would hear a case from Alabama that is solely a matter of Alabama law. And even if it were an eligibility case, the Supreme Court has declined on multiple cases to hear them.
As for recusal, and I presume you meant Obama’s appointees and not Clinton’s, there’s no rule that says that any Supreme Court justice has to recuse themselves for any reason. It’s their personal choice.
I would suggest that you not be overly optimistic about this lawsuit, which I predict will fare no better than the 200-odd others lost plowing the same ground.
I should correct what I said. There is a statute, 28 USC Section 455, dealing with the recusal of all federal judges. However, because there is no court higher than the Supreme Court, there is no way to enforce that law on a Supreme Court justice and I know of no case where anybody has tried. In any case, justices of the Supreme Court are not considered beholden to the presidents to appointed them, and they decide cases involving them all the time without recusal.
The notion that Obama appointees would be removed from the bench if Obama were found ineligible (and hence have a interest in the outcome) is legal nonsense.
Be nice but I’m not holding my breath.. every aspect of government is corrupt so my hopes of anyone with a pair of balls capable of doing something, to actually do something.
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.