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 ...

[jarofants]

[MEDIA UPDATE: I will be on the Jeff Rense Radio Program tonight 8-9 PM Pacific time.]

[Sibre Fan]

The claim that Obama lied on his Illinois Bar Application based on the Illinois ARDC Records screen shot was disproven long ago by conservative blogger Jeff Schreiber at America'sRight.com well over a year ago.

And any individual can personally verify Schreiber's information (and debunk the theory that the ARDC page proves Obama lied) by (a) reading the ARDC information at the pages he links and (b) calling the Illinois ARDC to confirm the information.

[SaraJohnson]

Why are you going on the radio show? I am sorry for my ignorance about who is who on FR. I am learning.

[BP2]

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.

Seeing that less than 25 percent of the public believes what newspapers and the rest of the MSM reports, forgive me if I don't believe that "Health Bureau Statistics" banner.

Prove that the DOH of Hawaii actually provided the information EXCLUSIVELY to newspapers, and in the manner described.

Just because the title says, "Health Bureau Statistics", it does NOT mean that the newspapers did NOT accept vanity birth announcements from family without a birth certificate in 1961 — nor does not mean that the DOH provided the information EXCLUSIVELY to the newspapers.

Also, where's the Nordyke's birth announcements?

[rolling_stone]

Here you go from this thread, trust me I am familiar with some of this history as I was peripherally involved in advocating some new legislation.FYI:

FBI did not get authority to carry firearms until 1934, but used them before anyway. INS used implied authority until about 1990, IRS as of 1996 did not have authority and according to them:

According to the IRS, there is no statutory authority for special agents to carry firearms. The General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, has concluded that no specific authority is necessary where a federal officer has the authority to make an arrest and that the authority to carry a firearm is implicit.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96154.pdf This chart show NCIS gets its "statutory authority" 10usc 1585 (1958) Here is an excellent reference book part is available online if you google it: Handbook of Federal Police and Investigative Agencies by Donald Torres. My point was some laws are implied and not necessarily statutory, and I gave an example for the Federal Government. It would be difficult to enforce ciminal laws without firearms, it would be difficult to enforce Presidential Eligibility without an Investigation. See implied contracts or implied in law.

[jarofants]

Your right I'm nobody. What I meant to say is Leo will be on that show tonight not me.

[thecodont]

Not sure if this helps, but I posted on another thread that I have the certified birth certificates of two of my relatives. One was born in one state and was a hospital birth, and this relative had a long-form birth certificate, I think with “received by Town Clerk” on it. The other relative was born in another state and was a home birth, and this relative had a short-form birth certificate with “filed by” on it.

What this tells me (all other things being equal between HI and these other two states) is that if BO’s COLB has “date filed” on it, then BO wasn’t born in a hospital at all.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

This is proff something is wrong and Obama is fighting to hide it.

Now all that you need to do is prove that the ordering of birth certificate numbers was absolutely based on the order of birth and not, say, based on the order some bureaucrat worked through a stack of papers.

[rolling_stone]

I think the question was spun, it should refer to Obama’s Application to take the Illinois BAR not register with ARDC! I see the question quite clearly.

link here:
https://www.ibaby.org/applications.action

got to bar exam application, browse forms, chacter and finess,section A personal information,other first middle or last name (2A) and it will ask:

2A Have you ever been known by any other first, middle or last name?

[Sibre Fan]

I agree with you that the Bar Application questions whether the applicant has ever been known by another name. That is not in dispute.

The "issue" is whether the IL ARDC records which show that Obama has no "Full Former name(s)" means that Obama lied on the bar application. In August 2008 ... and beyond, Berg and others have claimed that it does. That claim is demonstrably false as Jeff Schrieber documented (and anyone can personally confirm by reading the ARDC website and calling the ARDC).

The fact is that there is no evidence that Obama lied on his bar application. There's no evidence of what he put on his bar application.

[rolling_stone]

If Hawaii DOH had not taken down their Administrative Rules relating to that, or had posted the older Regulations, we might positively know the answer to that question as it works in alohalala land. Another coincidence?

Chapter 117 undergoing revisions:
Office of Health Status Monitoring
117
Vital Statistics, Registration & Records. Converting from Public Health Regulations Chapters 8, 8A, and 8B
to Administrative Rules.

New Rules in Process
Alvin Onaka
(808) 586-4600

also look at chapter 120 and 123

http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx

[RegulatorCountry]

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?

It involves the peculiar notion that British immigration authorities will declare the head of a foreign state a bastard, in order to interfere in the political process of that foreign state, on the basis of a supposed tribal marriage in Kenya with no known, legal record, that somehow trumps a legal, recorded marriage in the United States.

The chief promoter of this notion is Freeper RummyChick. The claimed basis is found in British citizenship statutes pertaining to those citizens who are descendants of former CUKC's, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

I'll leave you to be inundated with Void Ab Initio beyond all cognitio.

Have fun!

[rolling_stone]

The fact is that there is no evidence that Obama lied on his bar application. There's no evidence of what he put on his bar application.

Yeah pretty convenient isn't it! I bet he wishes that AP photo of his Indonesia school records was never found...

[wintertime]

They could and should report the facts. The facts alone are damning enough.

[SaraJohnson]

Thanks for letting me know.

[danamco]

See post 839!!!

[danamco]

that, whether he is or isn't, no court will ever address that issue.

And, WHY won't they???

[danamco]

See post 839!!!

[danamco]

It would be a fraud. But it wouldn't revoke his citizenship as you claimed.

Yes, you means his Indonesian citizenship, right???

[danamco]

Not out of cowardice (in either case), but because they are sensitive to the fact that they are the only unelected branch of Government, and because they are constrained by 220 years of precedent as to the limits of their jurisdiction.

But they have never had in 220 years to deal with an usurper in office who effectively is using the race card to silence everybody, even the Clintons who were the first "birthers"???

It SHOULD be their forum to settle this Constitutional crisis, a crisis that our nation has never experienced before, whether we like it or not, or if it unpopular, The Constitution is the Constitution that SCOTUS deals with every day!!!