Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Sanctions' sought in President's Eligibility case
WorldNet Daily ^ | Feb. 13, 2009 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 02/13/2009 2:41:18 AM PST by SvenMagnussen

A high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys representing President Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and passport documents concealed from the public has suggested there should be "monetary sanctions" against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn't qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in that post.

The suggestion came in an exchange of e-mails and documents in a case brought by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others in California. The case originally sought to have the state's electors ordered to withhold their votes for Obama until his eligibility was established. Since his inauguration, it has been amended to seek a future requirement for a vetting process, in addition to the still-sought unveiling of Obama's records.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; barackobama; berg; bho2008; bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; blackhelicopters; certifigate; citizenship; colb; conspiracytheories; constitution; coverup; democrats; democratscandals; eligibility; fascism; incompetent; ineligible; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; orly; orlytaitz; taitz; tinfoilhats; truthers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 621-640 next last
To: mojitojoe
FK that, he works for US, not the other way around.

There's no exemption in 8 USC 1481(b) for presidents of the United States. Sorry.

If you don't like the law, work to have it changed.


381 posted on 02/15/2009 8:03:23 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
“White man's rule”? Only a racist could even think of it in such terms!

Now, now -- don't be disparaging my home fry ... you know as well as I do that he's never used race to define himself, nor have any of his supporters < /sarc >

According to Journalist Kenneth E. Lamb's research, President-elect Barack Obama’s racial ethnicity is 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Arabic, 4.25% African American (Negro) and 2.00% Czech — http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Barack_Obama%27s_ethnicity

SO no worries: I won't hold it against Obama Jr that he is 52% European descent if he doesn't disparage the fact that I'm only 60% of European descent.

382 posted on 02/15/2009 8:04:13 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer

Very interesting. Comment #17 has been deleted at this reading (Feb. 15 at 8:06 p.m. PST). Would it be OK if I posted the first 16-18 comments here?


383 posted on 02/15/2009 8:06:58 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
You care enough to run over her with your little pre-printed talking points and post non stop

It's the COLBots who are running around parroting their pre-printed talking points, not me.


384 posted on 02/15/2009 8:08:16 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
Obama's more like a dual citizen of Kenya and Indonesia than any citizen of America.

Under US law, which is just a statutory continuation of the English common law, he has been a natural born citizen of the United States since 1961.


385 posted on 02/15/2009 8:09:52 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

LOL One would have to find someone who work in an SS office and is a diehard Republican and believer in upholding the Constitution!


386 posted on 02/15/2009 8:12:34 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

Since they are comments I don’t imagine they are covered under any copyright act so as far as I know it would perfectly all right to post the comments here, and perhaps even essential since we know once something is discovered it is often scrubbed and sent to the bit bucket in the sky!


387 posted on 02/15/2009 8:14:22 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Dude, don't even pretend like you have any idea of what you're talking about after you got pwn3d back on Post 305 regarding the 14th Amendment and Natural Born Citizen.

Talk to the


388 posted on 02/15/2009 8:16:55 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael; BP2
Under US law, which is just a statutory continuation of the English common law, he has been a natural born citizen of the United States since 1961.

I'll let B2 answer you and tell you why you got it wrong

389 posted on 02/15/2009 8:17:03 PM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: BP2

BP2 you are the man (or maybe woman ;-) )!

Great work! I hope you are sending your research to all the attorneys Orly, Berg, Pidgeon, Kreep and Mario Apuzzo in NJ.


390 posted on 02/15/2009 8:20:09 PM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: BP2
BP, Wiould you like to come over to the ObamaCrimres Frorum: They have been holding aa lively debate on the NBC clause. and they could use your expertise.

www.obamacrimes.us

391 posted on 02/15/2009 8:21:59 PM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
I'll let B2 answer you and tell you why you got it wrong

I'm sure he will. But it won't make him right.

Again, the English common law has been a continuum from colonial times, to beyond our founding. The only time it doesn't apply is where it has been changed by state constitutions or statute.

The states never bothered to veer from the English common law with respect to citizenship.

Again, educate yourself a bit and look up "reception statutes."


392 posted on 02/15/2009 8:25:42 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael
You can really spew the BS with the best of them.

Here's more evidence for you to chew on besides what I have shown you in the past that you are clearly wrong:

------------------------

"To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.... "

U.S. Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872)

393 posted on 02/15/2009 8:35:01 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

If you think Jr thinks only of the black race you are correct and as far back as 1995 that was written about, not including his fairytale. Read this article from 1995 and Jr hasn’t changed one bit.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/barackobama/

Also I am sure Columbia College would be interested in hearing that Jr graduated from there with a double major in Political Science AND English Lit!


394 posted on 02/15/2009 8:35:26 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Does anybody, anywhere have the name of the “person duly authorized... “?

Does anybody, anywhere have a marriage license or other document that attests to a legal marriage?

Re: para II — The University of Washington records show Dunham to have been at the university in the Winter 1962 and Spring 1962 semesters.

Nothing is cut and dried with these people. Both the mother and Obama have used multiple names and a paucity of documentation.


395 posted on 02/15/2009 8:42:23 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural Born" citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
Obama is 48. He has absolutely no paper trail. He has no bona fides.

As far as a public record, there is none.

He doesn't really exist. We're all just having a mass delusion.

How can any rational person believe that this is an accident?

396 posted on 02/15/2009 8:49:57 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural Born" citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The proposition before us [the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment], I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese [immigrant] parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [Civil Rights Act of 1866]; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation.



397 posted on 02/15/2009 8:57:05 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

You hit on the key word using “rational”. Anything or anyone associated with the Dunham/Obama family who would know anything is dead. I spent the night checking out the two women who taught the Russian language course at UH. Ella Lury Wiswell died in 2005 and the other woman, Isabella Tripianky is a ghost. The only references I found to Isabella were from the archived excerpt of Michael Patrick Leahy’s book, and references to Ella Lury Embree Wiswell are sparse as well. I am experiencing deja vue again just like I did with Orland Scott Lefforge!
I did discover that Ella moved to Hawaii and began teaching after the death of her anthropologist husband and their only daughter in a car accident in 1950. She taught at UH from 1951 until 1968 and then retired to write books.


398 posted on 02/15/2009 8:59:46 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
US law makes it impossible for a parent to PERMANENTLY renounce a minor’s US citizenship. The US is a signatory to the Hague Convention’s standards for international adoption, and those rules do allow the legal parents and guardians to renounce any former citizenship of a custodial minor. Upon reaching the age of 18, the minor can go before the appropriate US State Dept Official and apply for re-instatement of citizenship, and swear allegiance to the US. There is no evidence that Hussein has done so, and even if he did, he would then be a NATURALIZED citizen and will forever have lost any NBC status to be president.

I would love to get a source/link to this statement.

I did, at one time, have a link to the asserting of citizenship, but can't find it.

If I remember correctly, there is a six-month window after the 18th birthday.

399 posted on 02/15/2009 9:01:55 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural Born" citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer
Since they are comments I don’t imagine they are covered under any copyright act so as far as I know it would perfectly all right to post the comments here, and perhaps even essential since we know once something is discovered it is often scrubbed and sent to the bit bucket in the sky!

Here you go.

________

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/honolulu-star-bulletin/T3NTDELAVR0EHANNN

Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Vol. 13, Issue 196 - Monday, July 14, 2008

Stat reporting earns Alvin Onaka award


Comments (30)

Ethnicity
Mililani, HI
#1 Jul 14, 2008
Don't let Alvin Onaka fool you because he and DOH are against SB 968 and SB 969 during 2007 legislative session. The purpose of both bills was to include maternal parents and their ethnicity on an adopted person's birth certificate. This would have benefited all and those of Hawaiian ancestry. The "R" word applies to DOH and the State.

Mokuleia Man Mililani, HI
#2 Jul 14, 2008
Ethnicity wrote:
Don't let Alvin Onaka fool you because he and DOH are against SB 968 and SB 969 during 2007 legislative session. The purpose of both bills was to include maternal parents and their ethnicity on an adopted person's birth certificate. This would have benefited all and those of Hawaiian ancestry. The "R" word applies to DOH and the State.
I totally agree and the current procedure is very lengthy, costly, discouraging and discriminating to those especially of Hawaiian ethnicity. During the Teritorial era the government changed the ethnicity of adopted children. Example is a Hawaiian/Chinese/Caucasion child adopted by pure Chinese parents who along with the government changed that child's ethnicity to be ONLY CHINESE and therefore making the child's orginal birth certificate with her maternal parents VOID which includes their ethnicity. This also has psychological effects on that child. This is a form of Genocide and needs to be made pono.

Mokuleia Man
Mililani, HI
#3 Jul 14, 2008
Another example applicable to this article is what if Obama was adopted by Pure Asian parents and his adopted birth certificate reflected only that ethnicity while his phyical appearance is not Asian? Hello.. Granted DOH and Alvin did "some" ammending however where is the justice for those adopted of older generations? Alvin, DOH and State needs to make this highly sensitive concern pono.

OneWhoKnows
Honolulu, HI
#4 Jul 14, 2008
All of this would be great except for the fact that Alvin Onaka is the biggest Kotonk (yes he's from the mainland) jerk alive, who has one of the most grievances against him in the whole State system. He is the same **** that won't let people see a photo copy of their original birth certificate that is signed by their parents that used to be given out as well as the computer generated form that now passes for a birth certificate. I guess that the phrase you can fool some of the people all of the time is true.

OneWhoKnows
Honolulu, HI
#5 Jul 14, 2008
After reading the previous comments about Alvin Omori, I refuse to call him "Dr." because his "doctorate" is in some useless field like basket weaving, I disclose that I'm not Hawaiian in ethnicity, and am not against him because of his stance on adopted children. Although I am sure that the Hawaiian adoptees and their offspring have a legitimate gripe against him. I'm writing to say that he is a shet (spelled the local Hawaii way to avoid the censorship computer program) to everyone, not just Hawaiians. Instead of being honored he should be fired.

ksdb
Manhattan, KS
#6 Jul 15, 2008
Can a reporter ask Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., why his department originally said Obama's certificate was valid to the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, but now they can't disclose or confirm information that Obama has already made public at his Web site? Janice Okubo, the PR rep, said it was valid document and used the official method of comparing it to her own. Also, please find out if the typo on the date filed on Obama's certificate happened before or after it was issued by the Department of Health.

Mokuleia Man
Mililani, HI
#7 Jul 15, 2008
OneWhoKnows wrote:
All of this would be great except for the fact that Alvin Onaka is the biggest Kotonk (yes he's from the mainland) jerk alive, who has one of the most grievances against him in the whole State system. He is the same **** that won't let people see a photo copy of their original birth certificate that is signed by their parents that used to be given out as well as the computer generated form that now passes for a birth certificate. I guess that the phrase you can fool some of the people all of the time is true.
That's what I forgot to mention about not being able to obtain the original birth certificate forms and not the new computer generated forms which contains numerous typographical errors.

ksdb
Manhattan, KS
#8 Jul 15, 2008
Mokuleia Man wrote:
That's what I forgot to mention about not being able to obtain the original birth certificate forms and not the new computer generated forms which contains numerous typographical errors.
What kind of typographical errors?? Do you have an example??

A Fish Out of H2O
AOL
#9 Jul 15, 2008
Wow Al, what are you doing?

Mokuleia Man
United States
#10 Jul 15, 2008
ksdb wrote:
What kind of typographical errors?? Do you have an example??
Staff transposing information from the original certificates to the current computer certificates (ie incorrect spelling, ommiting information..de-cyphering..ect ) Also as previous mentioned they don't give you an option to obtain the original certificates.

Mokuleia Man
United States
#11 Jul 15, 2008
ksdb wrote:
What kind of typographical errors?? Do you have an example??
In geneoalogy research, a single letter can create a whole new person and incorrect person that you're doing research on. Unless you have known detailed information about the person or know what to look for i.e. geographical area, ethnicity, age ect..) it would be difficult for you. Many vital records prior and during the teritorial era of Hawaii had numerous typographical errors and incosistent information and unfortunately this continued when DOH decided to transpose information manually allow human error to set in.

texas latina
Odessa, TX
#12 Jul 19, 2008
omg- all obama has to do is produce a real birthcertificate and give hawaii permission to release the birth information! good Lord! all this does is raise more and more red flags. if he were legit, this would not be an unsettling issue. or he if he is legit, he would not be allowing this to go on just for funnzies. if he is, he is one sick m@%$#^ f$^$#&&! go to hell obama. i am tired of his sick, lying, manipulating, wussy, mind games!

Terra
Osage, WY
#13 Oct 20, 2008
I don't suppose (just to dispel these rumors that are coming up once again so close to this election) anyone would be willing to show their birth certificate (redone as Obama has) with their names whited out or anything?(It would be great)

Me_in_USA
Phoenix, AZ
#14 Oct 24, 2008
Did the local newspapers in Hawaii ever publish birth statistics back in 1961? Many newspapers in 1961 listed birth records. It would be a shame if the Hawaiian newspapers never considered to check their archives for a possible listing.

Okole Maluna
AOL
#15 Oct 24, 2008
Alvi Nonaka, who????????

A true american
Hanover, MA
#16 Oct 25, 2008
Dont trust barack obama or alvi this birth certificate issue is nothing but corruption. Anyone who votes for obama is just simply put a freakin idiot. what are these people thinking. I want to see the original birth certificate where is that. Why isn't anyone asking for it. DONT VOTE FOR OSAMA (OBAMA)!!!!!

freaking think

400 posted on 02/15/2009 9:03:06 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 621-640 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson