Posted on 07/29/2011 7:33:04 AM PDT by RobinMasters
Attorney, doc experts to show up at Hawaii Department of Health with court document
Computer scanning expert Doug Vogt and typesetting expert Paul Irey say they will accompany attorney Orly Taitz when she presents to the Hawaii Department of Health a subpoena that should allow her to examine Barack Obama's original 1961 typewritten birth certificate.
Vogt and Irey both told WND they are making travel plans to join Taitz in Honolulu when she goes to the state agency at 10 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 8, to present the subpoena in person.
"We will plan to hold a press conference late in the day of Aug. 8," Vogt said, "and if the document we see varies from the birth certificate documents the White House released, we plan to file criminal charges in Hawaii immediately."
Get the New York Times best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," by Jerome Corsi.
Vogt shared with WND a copy of a letter he has written to Hawaii Attorney General David Louie, putting Louie on notice regarding the reasons he believes the birth certificate released by the White House is fraudulent.
WND previously reported on Vogt's decision to file a 22-page criminal complaint with the FBI.
Irey says it won't take long to evaluate the original birth record, if it exists.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I haven’t read all the posts or the entire article, but what are the implications if by some miracle he IS proven to be ineligible for the office of President? Obviously, this would be a constitutional crisis of an unprecedented magnitude.
Since Biden was elected with him, as a package, would he be considered ineligible for the office? That would put Boehner in the WH.
Then, the question as to all the acts executed by Obama would need to be addressed. In a sane, rational country, this would be a no-brainer. But, I’m afraid that anarchy rules the day.
This wouldn’t be the first time in US history a government official has been discovered later to be not properly holding his office, such as by a lack of some sort of eligibility or qualification. In fact, it happens from time to time at all levels of government and the law is well established as to what happens under the de facto officer doctrine.
The only difference in this case is that it is the president. I think the courts will probably say that under the Constitution is the responsibility of Congress, not the courts, to have a trial on whether he did or did not meet the eligibility and if not, to remove him from office, after which he can then be tried in the courts for the crimes of fraud and forgery.
Can we see the BC that Obozo should have in his posession, wrinkled, original or copy issued way back to his mama and
one he should have, just like everyone has.
WHERE IS IT ???????????????????
He will then have even more splainin' to do.
A dollar a day helps keep the Marxists away.Support FR it is fast becoming the Reuters/AP of the New Media.
Hey ‘Bot, read between the lines: lll (picture this as a hand with three fingers held up, in case you’re among the textually comprehensionally (sic) impaired). A FORGERY has been posted on taxpayer-funded servers. Dodge that with your weasely arguments all you want, but you can’t dodge that. FAIL.
“For the “good of the country”... that’s why.”
While I’m not prepared to shoot down your posit without a fair hearing, I at the same time don’t see how letting a marxist usurper hell-bent on destroying the economy and the American rule of law as we know it get away with his crimes is “for the good of the country”. On the contrary, every single day longer that we allow this farce to continue is another day that this destroyer is allowed to continue his diabolical work. There is a solution that has yet to be posited regarding this Ican’tsaywhatIwantosayorI’llgetbannedverbiage (sic, ya think?), guy, and it is the same one that has yet to be posited vis a vis the Fast and Furious debacle: Special Prosecutor. In the meantime, I’ll continue to spread the message of this usurper’s ineligibility via means that are not subject to traditional disseminatory (sic) venues. Stamping money, placing flyer and “business” card, releasing balloons with the message “Obama’s Birth Certificate is Fake”, and other asymmetrical methods employed to educate the larger public. We’re in the endgame now, and the Obots are in full-blown panic mode. Now is not the time to let up; it’s time to do everything (legally) possible to broadcast the fact that there are serious, serious questions regarding the eligibility of the man currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
.....For the “good of the country”... that’s why......
Alternatively for the good of the country, if guilty he should be executed. His execution would be far better for the country than letting him off. Execution would be a strong precedent to other similar scoundrels bent on destruction.
My prediction, HDOH will ignore it. They will tell Taitz they need the DA to check it out and a week later nothing will have happened.
Just my 2 cents.
A couple of facts:
1) Obama is not a party to this lawsuit and he has no attorneys acting in this case. This lawsuit is “Taitz v Astrue.” Michael J. Astrue is Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. He is a George W. Bush appointee to a six year term as Commissioner. The Social Security Administration is an independent agency of the federal government, meaning Astrue does not work for Obama and the SSA has its own attorneys.
2) This lawsuit is not about Obama’s birth certificate. It is a Freedom of Information Act suit aimed at the Social Security Administration attempting to force them to release information about Obama’s Social Security number.
3) Hawaii law does not permit release of birth certificates under subpoenas. The law states that a copy of a birth certificate can be released via a COURT ORDER. A subpoena is not a court order. It is highly likely that Hawaii will deny the subpoena request.
Only judges issue court orders. Ms. Taitz could go to Judge Lamberth and request that he issue a court order for a copy of Obama’s birth certificate.
“What is a court order?”
A court order is a legal document or proclamation in which a court orders a person to perform a specific act, prohibits him from performing an act, sets a court date, or legally establishes something. For example, a court order may require an individual to pay a specific amount of money to another party. A court order may also prohibit a person from doing something, such as walking across another party’s property. Some court orders are used to set a date specifying when parties involved in a case are expected to appear in court. Other court orders may establish the relationship between parties in a case.
In many cases, court orders are given in writing and signed by a judge. In some places, however, a judge’s signature isn’t enough; an order has to be notarized to make it official. There are even cases in which a court order is given orally in open court. In such a case, the order may be recorded in the court’s transcripts but not given to the parties in writing.
Depending on the type of case, a person may suffer penalties for failing to follow the instructions in a court order. For example, a person may lose a case by default if he fails to show up in court at the date and time specified in a court order. If a defendant fails to appear for his trial, he may be arrested and put in jail.
Hawaii law allows the release of a confidential birth record to: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
A couple of facts:
1) Obama is not a party to this lawsuit and he has no attorneys acting in this case. This lawsuit is “Taitz v Astrue.” Michael J. Astrue is Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. He is a George W. Bush appointee to a six year term as Commissioner. The Social Security Administration is an independent agency of the federal government, meaning Astrue does not work for Obama and the SSA has its own attorneys.
2) This lawsuit is not about Obama’s birth certificate. It is a Freedom of Information Act suit aimed at the Social Security Administration attempting to force them to release information about Obama’s Social Security number.
3) Hawaii law does not permit release of birth certificates under subpoenas. The law states that a copy of a birth certificate can be released via a COURT ORDER. A subpoena is not a court order. It is highly likely that Hawaii will deny the subpoena request.
Only judges issue court orders. Ms. Taitz could go to Judge Lamberth and request that he issue a court order for a copy of Obama’s birth certificate.
“What is a court order?”
A court order is a legal document or proclamation in which a court orders a person to perform a specific act, prohibits him from performing an act, sets a court date, or legally establishes something. For example, a court order may require an individual to pay a specific amount of money to another party. A court order may also prohibit a person from doing something, such as walking across another party’s property. Some court orders are used to set a date specifying when parties involved in a case are expected to appear in court. Other court orders may establish the relationship between parties in a case.
In many cases, court orders are given in writing and signed by a judge. In some places, however, a judge’s signature isn’t enough; an order has to be notarized to make it official. There are even cases in which a court order is given orally in open court. In such a case, the order may be recorded in the court’s transcripts but not given to the parties in writing.
Depending on the type of case, a person may suffer penalties for failing to follow the instructions in a court order. For example, a person may lose a case by default if he fails to show up in court at the date and time specified in a court order. If a defendant fails to appear for his trial, he may be arrested and put in jail.
Hawaii law allows the release of a confidential birth record to: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
There are many persons from Obama’s past that have suspicious circumstances around their death, but, so far, Obama Sr’s brother Omar from Boston is the only one to have actually “disappeared”.
List of odd or suspicious deaths:
1. Obama Sr (Nov 1982) - Kenya family members are now calling his death suspicious with Obama’s grandmother claiming Barry was at the Obama Sr’s funeral.
2. Lolo Soetoro and Frank Marshall Davis (1987) - 2 out of 3 of Barry “dads” died just a few months apart, with Lolo dying at the young age of 52 just as Ann Dunham. Circumstances around Lolo’s death unclear.
3.Stan Dunham (1992) - just when Barry began “writing” ‘Dreams from My Father’.
4. Miss Hefty (1995) Obama’s 5th grade teacher and who played a pivotal role in ‘Dreams from My Father’ (published in 1995) with the phony Obama Sr classroom visit in 1971.
5. Ann Dunham (Nov 1995) - just after reading ‘Dreams from My Father’ and just before Barry launched his political career.
6. Three gay churchgoers @ Obama’s church (40 days apart) in the same year (2007) Barry announces his run for presidency. (check for accuracy)
7. Lt. Quarles Harris (April 2008) - after looking into Obama’s records.
8. Madelyn Payne Dunham (2008) - one day before the 2008 election.
9. “Sobah” Soetoro (2009) - just hours after talking to press before Obama’s Indonesia visit.
Why on earth should she be a long way from getting anything??? HI has nothing to hide, right? Everything is in perfect order, right? Why wouldn’t HI comply to, as Abercrombie vowed to [and failed epically] ‘put the issue to rest’???
“Are you forgetting SAD’s plea in he divorce from Lolo, regarding a child (18 years old) whom she claimed to the court Lolo was still legally responsible to aid in college funding? Would only Lolo’s adoption of little barry make him legally responsible, or if the grandparents had adoption of little barry, could SAD make such a legal claim against Lolo?”
Man, I really wish that were the case. That would be a smoking gun, but I just read the divorce papers and SAD made no claim of support or alimony for either child.
SAD checked the “should not” box for Lolo paying any child support.
The divorce papers mention that there is a child over 18 who is at university but that’s it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9940006/Soetoro-Divorce-1980-9-Pages-Merged
If you tried just a little harder, could you possibly sound and post a little more like jamese777?
Nah, you’re already a dead ringer; no tweaking required.
The papers show she represented to the court that there was one child under 18 and one still in need of educational assistance. That establishes what she then offered to not require payment/alimony/child support for. Yes, she checked the ‘should not’ box, according to the image you provided, but she placed in her pleading waht would be Lolo’s responsibility had she not check ‘not’ requesting support. I know for a fact that the court can require a parent to provide support even if the other parent checks the ‘not’ box. BTW, Jamese, what were you banned for? ... Obamanoid troll, go defend the marxist lying sonofabitch at some other site. You are an enemy of the Republic defending the criminality of a lying traitor.
I'm sorry, let me put my birther specs on.
....I’m sorry, let me put my birther specs on.
no need for birther specs. just pull your head out from where it is and you will be able to see much clearer...
My understanding is that child support is for minor children.
The older child at university was 19 years old at the time of the Soetoro divorce.
In any event, no child support or alimony was granted in an uncontested divorce.
Because it's against their rules to. Why is that so hard to understand? As jh4freedom has pointed out, there's a very specific list of who it's legal to release records to. Someone waving a subpoena they downloaded from a court's website isn't on the list. That's it.
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.