News from Alan Keyes: Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed

AIPNews.com ^ | October 7, 2009 | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty

 

I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.

Loyal to Liberty ...

[curiosity]

No, where other lawyers, private investigators, people that have infiltrated hospitals and other places and researchers have information they are using to build a case and you won’t see any of that posted here.

Whatever you say, Sparky.

[Sibre Fan]

ghettofinger: Why does the effective date of the 1986 amendment say this.....

Ok. 8 USC 1409(b) provides, Except as otherwise provided in section 405 of this Act, the provisions of section 1401 (g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation. ..... Ok. This amendment provision does modify 8 USC 1401(g) for purposes of children born between 1941 and 1952. So, while 1401(g)(B) currently reads: (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; ....the effect of the 1986 amendment to 1409 is to add 1941-1952 to the relevant period.

But – even if my reading is wrong, and the 1941-52 period applies to the entire paragraph (g), that doesn't help anyone here, since Obama wasn't born between 1941 and 1952.

Let's move on to (c). 8 USC 1409(c) provides: Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year. As I read (c), a child who is born outside the US after 1952 to a mother who is not married acquires US citizenship at birth if his mother was a US citizen and had previously been present in the US for at least one continuous year.

However, 1409(c) is not modifying 1401(g) at all, so if you are relying on 1409(c) to make your argument, leave 1401 completely out of it.

ghettofinger: ....keeping in mind that Obamas mother and father were never legally married, as he already had a wife in Kenya....thus, she was unmarried.

Question: Do you have a link to the Hawaiian law (or any other law) under which a US marriage would be invalidated on the basis of a tribal ceremony marriage in a foreign country, especially if that marriage was not registered or otherwise legally recognized at the time of the US marriage?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Sooner or later you will come to realize what an immense help you were to them.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Same old song. "One of these days I'll show you. Just you wait. You'll be sorry. Just wait. Any day now..."

How long do we have to wait for your superduper undercover agents to come up with something?

[American Constitutionalist]

" He held a hearing on Monday and allowed both sided to make their case through oral arguments. If at the end he'd pulled out his ruling and issued it then it would make the whole process seem like a waste. Having heard what everyone has to say it's only right that he take time to craft his response. You have to give Judge Carter credit. Whatever his final decision is, it's clear he's not taken the case lightly and has done everything he could to ensure he has all the information he needs to issue a fair ruling. "

Thank you Non-Sequitur for the summary.

Can I ask ? whatever what Judge Carter's decision,,,, would the Obama's people consider that Judge Carter was fair in his decision ?

On a more personal note, look, I know all of us here on FreeRepublic have our own values, and own opinions, but, I don't hold a grudge, or spite, and I don't have a beef with the Obots, as long as they don't personally attack others here on Free Republic.
All of us should keep it civil here.
Yes, I know, I have called the Obots ( GREEN SLIME ) but, please, take it in stride that I am just doing it out of humor and it is painting with a broad brush....

Even though we have our ideology and political differences, I would still pray for anyone here, and that includes the Obots, if they have a health need that needs to be prayed for, we can pray for that, if they have a financial need that needs to be prayed for, we can do that for you.

[raygun]

Well, one thing certain, impeachement is entirely a political procedure. Impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senaate is done for high crimes and misdemeanors.

It will remain to be seen if the felony of false personation (punishable by three years in jail) raises to that bar. But something tells me that for the magic negro the bar is much MUCH higher than merely a felony.

18 USC 911

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

On a more personal note, look, I know all of us here on FreeRepublic have our own values, and own opinions, but, I don't hold a grudge, or spite, and I don't have a beef with the Obots, as long as they don't personally attack others here on Free Republic.
All of us should keep it civil here.

Well said, but at the same time, a certain amount of verbal cut and thrust is what makes this place entertaining. What I find funny is the people on the birther side of the matter who are dismayed that people who don't agree with them aren't banned outright. I've even seen accusations that the moderators are protecting them, as if FR itself is part of the conspiracy.

[danamco]

The arguments here goes like when the illegal usurper in the W.H. fueled up AF-one and flew to CPH to show his face demanding the Olympic goes to the gangster’s city. However, OIC said NO!!!

[American Constitutionalist]

" Well said, but at the same time, a certain amount of verbal cut and thrust is what makes this place entertaining. What I find funny is the people on the birther side of the matter who are dismayed that people who don't agree with them aren't banned outright. I've even seen accusations that the moderators are protecting them, as if FR itself is part of the conspiracy. "

I believe, there is 2 or 3 ( who knows ) of groups, or categories, those who are truely conservative who disagree, but, have not made that movement towards the other side who are on the fence, and those, who , disagree who are on Obama's side....
The point I was making, is, as long as they don't resort to personal attacks when they don't have a argument, then, we can agree to disagree, and yes, I do use humor sometimes, but, it's all in a sense to keep things on the lighter side.
I honestly believe, that there are Obot's who are dogmatic in that they believe, but, God moves in mysterious ways, God can use the Holy Spirit to touch their hearts and change them.
I honestly believe that, they would , one day, make the connection, and think, wait a min, they are right, or they are really onto something here.
There is no way in the world to stop the Holy Spirit of God to touch someone's heart and make a change in them, it's God's will.
I just want to let them know, yes, I disagree with them on political, and ideology level, but, I don't hold a grudge against them, I have no beef with them.
If they have a personal need that needs to be prayed for, we can do that.
I have friends in whom they are liberal, but, I like the person in who they are.
I do admit, I stay away from liberals who are obnoxious, but, for liberals who argue with me and keep it on a lighter point without attacking me personally I welcome the political discussions.

[BP2]

The birth announcements, which came out within a few days of the filing date

That's assuming that some Hawaii newspaper employee in 2009 accurately confirmed that his newspaper in 1961 — possibly before that employee was even BORN — that Hawaii newspapers "REPORTEDLY" accepted birth notifications ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY from the State Registrar. That's compared to Obama's newspaper birth announcement which is likely a "vanity" birth announcement, paid for by his mother or grandmother.

That in and of itself is a big problem for Obama's newspaper birth announcement, as Obama's birth record was merely FILED by the local Registrar, not ACCEPTED by the State Registrar.

Further, if notification ONLY came from the State of Hawaii Registrar, there would be newspaper birth announcements for the Nordyke twins whose birth certificates were ACCEPTED by the State Registrar ... born within 18 hours of Obama's purported birth at the same hospital.

Name	Location of Birth	Birth Cert #	Date/Time Born
Barack Hussein Obama II	Kapiolani Medical Center	151-61-10641	Aug. 4, 1961 7:24 pm
Susan Elizabeth Nordyke	Kapiolani Medical Center	151-61-10637	Aug. 5, 1961 2:12 pm
Gretchen Carter Nordyke	Kapiolani Medical Center	151-61-10638	Aug. 5, 1961 2:17 pm

Name	Location of Birth	Birth Cert #	Date/Time Born
Barack Hussein Obama II	Kapiolani Medical Center	151-61-10641	Aug. 4, 1961 7:24 pm
Susan Elizabeth Nordyke	Kapiolani Medical Center	151-61-10637	Aug. 5, 1961 2:12 pm
Gretchen Carter Nordyke	Kapiolani Medical Center	151-61-10638	Aug. 5, 1961 2:17 pm

[PIF]

Not hearings - debates then votes. The Hosue impeaches, the Senate convicts - it is possible that even with a conviction in the Senate, it would not vote for removal, and Hussein would remain in office doing the same sort of damage to the country he is currently undertaking.

[danamco]

See post 839!!!

[danamco]

That means he could get a real COLB that says he was born in Hawaii.

And it has been amended!!!

[raygun]

All 1409(c) accomplishes is the child is considered to be a national of the United States. A national at birth must subsequently naturalize according to due process. 1401(g) confers naturalization at birth, i.e., citizenship.

However, in both cases citizen status of the child is inherited (jus sanguinis). In the later case, because of naturalization, the child is not NBC. All citizens are nationals but not all national are citizens.

[Non-Sequitur]

Can I ask ? whatever what Judge Carter's decision,,,, would the Obama's people consider that Judge Carter was fair in his decision ?

Let me put it the other way, what do you think the opinion of Judge Carter will be among the Birther community should he grant the motion to dismiss?

Speaking for myself alone, regardless of how Judge Carter rules I will accept that it is an honest reflection on what he truly believes the law requires.

Yes, I know, I have called the Obots ( GREEN SLIME ) but, please, take it in stride that I am just doing it out of humor and it is painting with a broad brush....

I've been on this forum for almost 9 years. I've been with the mainstream on a lot of issues and out of the mainstream on a lot of issues. And one thing that I've learned is that if you have a thin skin and are easily offended then you're in the wrong place. I assure you that there isn't a single post I've gotten or name I've been called that has caused me a moment of lost sleep or to carry any kind of grudge.

[SaraJohnson]

Very interesting and well laid out, BP. Thank you very much.

The response from the after-birthers - so what; prove it if you can! This is proff something is wrong and Obama is fighting to hide it.

[American Constitutionalist]

" Let me put it the other way, what do you think the opinion of Judge Carter will be among the Birther community should he grant the motion to dismiss? "

Good question....
I don't know, but, yes, we will be disappointed, and I do think the birthers will pursue this still until there is a case to go forward with.

[Sibre Fan]

However, in both cases citizen status of the child is inherited (jus sanguinis).

Agreed - because they are born outside the country.

[ExTexasRedhead]

I’m praying big time that all those guilty in this lie are exposed in front of the American people and justice is served.

[Sibre Fan]

That's assuming that some Hawaii newspaper employee in 2009 accurately confirmed that his newspaper in 1961 — possibly before that employee was even BORN — that Hawaii newspapers "REPORTEDLY" accepted birth notifications ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY from the State Registrar

No reliance on a 2009 employee is required. However, you do have to assume that in 1961, when originally reported, neither newspaper printed a false statement at the top of the announcements saying "Health Bureau Statistics." Obama's birth announcement appeared in the "Health Bureau Statistics" list in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin in August 1961.

In other words, no one needs to rely on what anyone says in 2009. They just have to decide whether they believe the newspapers were lying in 1961.


That's compared to Obama's newspaper birth announcement which is likely a "vanity" birth announcement, paid for by his mother or grandmother.

To accept the theory that that is even possible, much less likely, one has to accept the premise that both newspapers printed false information in 1961.

The Star Bulletin still publishes, every Sunday, vital statistics filed with the state Department of Health's Vital Statistics System, although at some point between 1961 and today, they stopped publishing actual date of marriage/birth.

The Honolulu Advertiser publishes "vanity" birth announcements, but requires parents to attach a copy of the official state-issued birth certificate, and will not print a birth announcement without it.

[BP2]

Hawaii state officials, in straight-forward language, have confirmed his vital records say he was born in Hawaii.

Granted the INCREDIBLY "wide as a Mack Truck" loopholes in HRS §338, HRS §538 and Hawaii Family Court rules for adoption, foreign births, etc, Obama's birthplace IS questionable — especially factoring a MOUNTAIN of questionable facts of his past.

Obama HIMSELF has never directly said he was born in Hawaii on the date, time and location purported — he's always used proxies (Fukino, Abercrombie, Gibbs, Annenberg's FactCheck, etc) to proclaim that for him

As a failed attorney, without any reported aliases, Obama must think that'll grant him plausible deniability, or something ...

About the ONLY reason he would have plausible deniability with NO reported aliases would be if he has court-sealed Adoption records back in Hawaii.

The question would then become ... did he legally change his name BACK to Barack Hussein Obama?