Posted on 01/28/2013 6:52:20 PM PST by Codetrader
Start immediate investigation of Barack Obama's use of forged IDs and a CT SSN which was never assigned to him according to e-verify -- 19,362 Letters and Emails Sent So Far.
On April 15, 2010 Obama posted his 2009 tax returns on line. He forgot to flatten the PDF file and his full unredacted Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 became known to the public.
This number immediately raised suspicions of Attorney Orly Taitz, as it started with 042, a digit combination which was assigned to the state of CT and Obama was never a resident of CT. E-verify and SSNVS showed that this number used by Barack Obama was never assigned to him.
We have an individual sitting in the WH as the US president and Commander-in-Chief, in control of our nuclear arsenal, while using a stolen/fraudulently obtained Social Security number from a state where he never resided.
Additionally, former Chief Investigator of the special investigations unit of the U.S. Coast Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman prepared a sworn affidavit for Attorney Orly Taitz showing that Obama's alleged application for the Selective Service is a forgery. According to 5 USC § 3328.one is forbidden from holding a position in the executive branch if he did not register for the Selective Service.
Obama never legally registered for the selective service, as his application is a forgery, as such he is forbidden to work as a President in the White House or as a janitor in the White House. According to Obama's school registration in Indonesia he is a citizen of Indonesia.
According to his mother's passport records his legal last name is Soebarkah.
According to sworn affidavits of the Sheriff of Maricopa county, AZ and multiple experts Obama's alleged birth certificate is a computer generated forgery.
Attorney Orly Taitz and her supporters, law abiding U.S. citizens, demand that the U.S. Congress do not engage in treason and do not cover up Obama's usurpation of the U.S. Presidency with forged IDs and a fraudulently obtained SSN.
We demand immediate investigation of Obama's usurpation of the U.S. Presidency to be conducted in the both houses of the U.S. Congress.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Judge Roberts to consider a case concerning the use of a false SS# by Obama on Feb 15th, 2013.
It is real! http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm
Respectfully seeking your support to discover the truth. Congress needs to act.
http://www.petition2congress.com/9026/start-immediate-investigation-barack-obamas-use-forged-ids-ct-ssn/
Thank you for reading this post.
All of my federal representatives, and the governor in Idaho, are republicans. I printed out the fake birth certificate, Social Security, and Selective Service registration card info, and mailed it to each of them. All of them said they believe obama is legally qualified to be president. It really scares me that not ONE republican member of congress challenged obama on these. Has congress and the white house been infiltrated? I believe so.
In your original response you referred to “that court” to indicate Judge Malihi was seperate and distinct from the GA Supreme Court. You do not understand there is one judiciary in GA and all Courts accept the decision of the lower Court as a decision made by the entire judiciary, unless an appeal is successfully launched and the lower Court’s decision is overturned.
Conversely, a decision by the GA Supreme Court is precedent for the entire judiciary. Haynes v. Wells is precedent set by a GA Supreme Court decision where the burden of proof is upon the candidate to proof eligiblilty after a candidate attests they are eligible for the office and is successfully challenged by an elector.
When Orly Taitz waived Judge Malihi’s offer of default judgment against defendant Obama for his failure to appear, she waived the Haynes v. Wells precedent for a challenged candidate to prove their eligibility. You’re attempting to protect Obama from the disgrace of not showing up to defend his eligibility when he was ordered to do so.
I know you won’t admit it. You’ll never admit Obama is ineligible because you’re delicate physce can’t handle the truth.
Ummm, no, this is some tangent you've invented.
You do not understand there is one judiciary in GA and all Courts accept the decision of the lower Court as a decision made by the entire judiciary, unless an appeal is successfully launched and the lower Court’s decision is overturned.
You're missing a step. Malihi is an administrative judge whose ruling serves as an advisory opinion to the secretary of state who is free to either accept or reject that opinion.
Conversely, a decision by the GA Supreme Court is precedent for the entire judiciary. Haynes v. Wells is precedent set by a GA Supreme Court decision where the burden of proof is upon the candidate to proof eligiblilty after a candidate attests they are eligible for the office and is successfully challenged by an elector.
This idea of precedent only means something if you can show how it was actually applied by Malihi in the ballot challenge against Obama. The only thing you've shown is Orly Taitz citing a burden of proof AFTER Malihi gave his decision.
When Orly Taitz waived Judge Malihi’s offer of default judgment against defendant Obama for his failure to appear, she waived the Haynes v. Wells precedent for a challenged candidate to prove their eligibility.
Then you're arguing against yourself because this means the court did not require a burden of proof on the president. Thanks for admitting it.
You’re attempting to protect Obama from the disgrace of not showing up to defend his eligibility when he was ordered to do so.
Nothing I've posted protects Obama from any alleged "disgrace." And yes, he was advised to show up and present evidence, but he was not ordered to be there.
I know you won’t admit it. You’ll never admit Obama is ineligible because you’re delicate physce can’t handle the truth.
Wow, this statement is completely ignorant. You need to read my posts because I've helped show several times how Obama is not and cannot be Constitutionally eligible for office. What I'm not going to do is make an ignorant statement that the ballot challenge in Georgia put the burden of proof on Obama when it clearly did not. Why are you trying to argue that they did??
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.