Posted on 02/25/2010 7:44:15 AM PST by capacommie
Bob Unruh says an attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn't eligible, he could be charged under a number of felony statutes.
And that's just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition, as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF).
Kreep has been involved in several of the cases that have raised challenges to Obama's occupancy of the Oval Office, including two in California. One is on appeal in the state court system and names California Secretary of State Debra Bowen as defendant. The other, in the federal court system, is on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both make claims on behalf of individuals and political candidates in California over Obama's presence on the 2008 election ballot.
North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible
Kreep's legal research revealed two precedents he believes would be applicable in the Obama case. In one, state officials arbitrarily removed a candidate from an election ballot because it was not proven the candidate was qualified for office. In another, the North Dakota Supreme Court removed the sitting governor from office when it was documented he was not eligible under the state's requirements.
Now Kreep has released an analysis of the federal laws he believes could be applied should Obama ultimately be shown to be ineligible.
"If he is not eligible, he could be charged not only under with these crimes, but potentially with crimes in a number of states where he falsely represented that he was qualified to run, as well as people who helped him."
Further, there could be any number of challenges to virtually anything he did as president: his nominations, his executive orders and his signing of legislation.
"This is completely uncharted territory. It could all be challenged as invalid. There has to be a sitting president for [actions] to be valid. If he's not qualified, if he's not the president, it isn't valid."
USJF staff attorney Chris Tucker cites the statutes that could apply here (cursor down) . . .
The point is that if Arthur's father's Irish citizenship at the time of Arthur's birth was not an issue 100 years ago, and if nothing was done legislatively then to remove any doubt as to who was and who was not a natural born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, what makes it an issue now?
So then, you are claiming that if Obama's mother was a citizen of Kenya and his father a US citizen, there would be no problem?
When did that happen? What planet do you live on?
Our constitution states that the POTUS must be a Natural Born Citizen. He was certified by the DNC, this was later seen to be fraudulent. He is a constitutional Scholar from Harvard. He KNEW before he even entered the race that he was unqualified. The DNC knew as well. They lied to each of the states about his qualifications, they accepted it blindly. The courts know this, and fall on STANDING, when in fact, many people in current cases have standing.
The fact that he currently holds the position of POTUS illegally, does not give him legal status. It is not a matter of conjecture, that he MIGHT be qualified. By his own voice, and his status at birth, and the national origon of his father, and stepfather, he is disqualified, regardless of where he was born. Secondly his mother was not in the US long enough before his birth to qualify him either. This is not opinion, this is known fact.
You might want to review what exactly constitutes fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
**benefit fraud, committing fraud to get government benefits
**embezzlement, taking money which one has been entrusted with on behalf of another party,
**identity theft - Multiple SS numbers
**forgery of documents or signatures - Signing documents as POTUS when in fact he knows he cannot hold that position legally.
a representation of an existing fact;
its materiality;
its falsity;
the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity;
the speaker’s intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
plaintiff’s ignorance of its falsity;
plaintiff’s reliance on the truth of the representation;
plaintiff’s right to rely upon it; and
consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.
There are dozens of cases in the court system against Barry Soetoro aka Barak Obama for just this offense.
Your statements show ignorance of these aforementioned facts, and seem to imply that if he told us he was not qualified and we elected him anyway, he was somehow indemnified. Of course, if he was not qualified, and pursued and secured a job that he was not qualified for, he has perpetrated a fraud on the American people.
Yes, perhaps Arthur's father obtained his US citizenship in secret when Arthur was 14 and people didn't gossip way back then. Not likely, but, I suppose possible.
Anchor baby's are native born by statue...
Would that be all statues, or just the Statue of Liberty?
Barry was born a subject of the crown of her Majesty the Queen of England.
It also says that "Native" and "Natural" born share the same circumstances at the time of their birth.
There would be a problem as far as the traditional legal historical definition of "natural born citizen" is concerned because "parents" and "citizens" in that definition is plural.
I am starting to see some of the Republicans logic if there is any. They seem to be playing right out of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Where as Obama is playing out of the Salinsky’s Rules for Radicals book. They are making the Democrats overreach, and while they are out it they are using a scorched earth like tactics to get what they want. However, they have gotten very little of what they wanted done, but used most of their political capital. Their agenda is frightening. Obama is frightening. His disregard of the Constitution is sickening, as well as his followers.
I just think the Republicans will deal with this when they actually have the power to do so. I do have doubts though.
The planet where it is recognized that a case built on a premise that may or may not be false is no case at all until that premise is proven to be true.
You might want to review what exactly constitutes fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
**benefit fraud, committing fraud to get government benefits
**embezzlement, taking money which one has been entrusted with on behalf of another party,
**identity theft - Multiple SS numbers
**forgery of documents or signatures - Signing documents as POTUS when in fact he knows he cannot hold that position legally.
Your list is bogus because the items on your list are suppositions, not facts.
Definition of supposition: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
- a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof
- a hypothesis that is taken for granted
Your statements show ignorance of these aforementioned facts, and seem to imply that if he told us he was not qualified and we elected him anyway, he was somehow indemnified. Of course, if he was not qualified, and pursued and secured a job that he was not qualified for, he has perpetrated a fraud on the American people.
Actually, your statements demonstrate an ignorance of the definition of "facts" - here, let me help you out with a definition; "fact" - something that actually exists; reality; truth.
Obama never claimed his father was a US citizen, he openly admitted that he had dual citizenship at his birth; the majority of voters decided he was eligible, the electors decided he was eligible, and Congress let slip by the opportunity to question his eligibility. It just might be that your definition of Natural Born Citizen is in error.
We live on a place called Earth. You may have heard of it in whatever phantasamagorical place of wonder and chocolate birth certificates the birther crowd has constructed to reside in.
The disgust and outrage felt by those who realize what has been done is palpable throughout the country. Add this to the frustration of having the fraud accepted and certified, and now officially ignored, leaves us with very limited recourse.
As the sitting President, the de facto, if not the de jure President, Obama sits at the head of the Executive Branch of Government. He is therefore immune to civil and criminal prosecution penalties while there. He, usurper, criminal, fraud, or not, can now only be removed by Congress.
They can take the ruling of the appropriate courts (The Federal District Court in DC, and the SCOTUS) under advisement ... OR NOT.
The fact that he currently holds the position of POTUS illegally, does not give him legal status....
He is ineligible on the face of it, i.e., based on the facts we know. But he has not been ruled ineligible. In fact, 50 states AGs have certified him as eligible, i.e., they accepted his and his party's affirmation. He was certified by the President of the Electoral College, and sworn in by the Chief Justice. There can be no doubt, fraud or not, that he is the sitting President of the US. If he's a fraud, he can be Impeached (Charged) by Congress in the House, and convicted in the Senate. Congress needs no court's permission to do that.
If a Writ of Quo Warranto is properly obtained, and that court or SCOTUS on appeal, finds him ineligible, after appeals are exhausted, Congress may ... or may not ... choose to remove him. That's their call. Again, if they chose to remove him, they could try and convict him or find him ineligible, without the court's involvement.
"Have him arrested ... jailed... etc. etc. " cannot be done. Congress, and only Congress, can have him removed from office. Once removed, he would of course be subject to the law of the land, as any other person.
Team Obama, with knowledge aforethought, found an area in the Constitution that has not been properly protected, or at least not adequately tested, and driven a truck through it.
The only court constitutionally open for redress of this by the citizens is the Federal District in DC. First, the AG has to be given the opportunity to bring the people's case. If he refuses, as he would be expected to do, since he is the President's lawyer, another lawyer may ... or may not..be allowed to. It is also expected that the AG .... and the Federal District Court ... both highly partisan ... would use delaying tactics.
IMHO, this is the severest test the Constitution has been put to in two and half centuries. In all probability, the Founders never imagined that an ineligible Presidential candidate would ever be a very serious problem ... since at that time, apparently everyone knew very well what a Natural Born Citizen was!
Let THE RATS suffer with him, he’s their Wylie Coyote, dems are pretty much admiting they’re socialist, progressive, commie anyway. Let the country catch on.
It just sets my teeth on edge.
At this time, as your no doubt aware, quo warranto action has been filed by two attorneys, Orly Taits, and Leo Donofrio. Taitz has given the AG the requisite time to respond, and he has failed to do so.
As for the states (50) that having accepted beforehand, based on accrediation by the AG and the DNC, were duped. Many have started proceedings against those states, to investigate and invalidate states approval and electoral college votes for said candidate, based on fraud at the highest levels of the DNC party.
Another tack is being tried right now. That being to take away the financial backing of national lawyers from Soetoro/Obama as the fraud was committed before he became president. Hence, he must supply and pay for his own legal defense as an individual.
Of course, the 900 pound gorilla in the middle of the room is the fact that he simply does not comply with the nations voters request that he prove he is a natural born citizen.
So much for transparency, eh?
There's zero percent chance, that when the framers wrote the requirement, they intended for someone born subject to the crown of England (or elsewhere for that matter), would be considered NBC and thus eligible to be the Commander in Chief of the military. For glaringly obvious reason's I would add.
Right. If O is removed, what do we get for the efforts?
Biden and Pelosi?
Seriously?
How about we get enforcement of the Constitution. We get a loud and clear message that its provisions are still taken seriously. We get maybe a FEW politicians to think really hard about their oath of office.
If the man is not eligible, then GET RID OF HIM.
D@mn Right!
The "country" surely didn't care about C.A. when he was a 14 y.o. and what citizenship status his father had when he was born. The issue, apparently, never came up. Why? I would venture a guess that nobody had a reason to doubt his eligibility when he was elected Vice President. The information wasn't widely known then, as it is more so now. It doesn't appear that he went public in a book (etc) saying that when he was born, his father was a foreigner. Furthermore, the "media" back then was far different than it is today, not having "thrill's" up their leg & actively cheerleading for the guy. C.A. had his papers burned upon his death. Gee, I wonder why? Something to hide perhaps?
“There’s zero percent chance, that when the framers wrote the requirement, they intended for someone born subject to the crown of England (or elsewhere for that matter), would be considered NBC and thus eligible to be the Commander in Chief of the military. For glaringly obvious reason’s I would add.”
Fine, whatever. Agree to disagree. But an actual court, with real judges, decided last year that this is exactly what the Founders meant, for very clear historical reasons, provided the person in question was born under the jurisdiction of the United States. So to say that the chances are zero is to willfully ignore real legal history.
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.