Posted on 01/26/2012 5:55:04 AM PST by RaceBannon
Article II SUPERPAC streaming live video and audio at this link
To all O supporters,I keep thinking this:If he is eligible and has the proof why has he been fighting this for millions of dollars in many courts?
I know that is a simple question but if I was an Obot,would that not give me pause?
George Romney and whether he could run for President was brought up in the Oral Arguments in the Nguyen case. Can’t remember which Justice brought him up.
What is stealth about stating the fact the left has had a plan for over 40 years to orchestrate a race war as a path to absolute power?
Why do you think Bernadine Dorn (SP?) of the Weather Underground praised Charles Manson for his plan to start a race war?
Your ignorance of facts doesn't make me a racist nor does it mean I have a stealth agenda.
Your ignorance of facts means your ignorant, nothing more.
So you’re saying that paternity was conceded based on Obama’s CLAIM that these BC’s were genuine? That it wouldn’t matter if the documents were fake as long as they were accurate - and Obama admits against his own interest they are accurate? So the claim of BHO as Obama’s father was made by the plaintiffs and Obama never rebutted that claim, as evidenced by his claim that the BC’s listing BHO as father were genuine.
Does that sum up what you’re saying? The plaintiffs never proved (or attempted to prove) that BHO was the father, but they did prove that BHO wasn’t contesting the claim so it would be considered admitted as a fact.
It applies to her grandson and she always considered that he could run for President.
And this exactly illustrates a point that I am constantly mentioning. Our Supreme Court does not decide issues based on law, they decide issues based on their own political disposition, how they feel that morning, and how they can rationalize it by claiming it is based on "law."
Change the makeup of the court, and you will change the outcome. A prime example is the recent ruling that GPS surveillance was unconstitutional. The court was Unanimous, but their reasons were all over the place. That they are all Unanimous is great. That they don't have a legitimate reason for being unanimous indicates that the ruling is more based on whim and personality than it is based on law.
And yet you find it necessary to show up on just about every eligibility thread to disrupt, ridicule and otherwise be a nuisance.
Most call that trolling, or in your case an obot.
If I understand it correctly, they won the default judgment because no opposing argument was made. Because there is no opposition, the plaintiffs won. At this point I do not know if this is bad or good.
Obama has ducked, and I am not certain it matters or will have any negative consequences at all. Given the blatant antagonistic response of the press outside the hearing, and their aggressively belligerent attitude toward Orly, the press is NEVER going to discuss Minor v Happersett. They will make Orly and the birth certificate the target and ignore the real issue.
You are mistaken.
No, because you would be mentally deficient, and believe all of the crap the MSM has said about birthers being wacko. Also, you probably wouldn't know about the O spending massive amounts of money keeping this hidden.
Remember that to acknowledge the marriage, you would have to admit that Obama Senior is a bigamist, and that there could not be a marriage of record. Sort of like the man being charged with the honor killing of three of his daughters along with his “first wife”, who happened to be living with him and his new wife.
Thanx. Was wondering if the fed court has jurisdiction to take appeals of the SoS ruling or perhaps the state court.
This was Obama’s only choice because he can’t prove he’s eligible for office. He’s counting on public opinion and character assasination of so-called “birthers” and the Georgia judge and SOS as a means to forestall any further challenges. We predicted this ahead of time. The media needs to be pushed to ask why Obama was afraid to show his birth certificate(s) in a court of law and if that is a tacit admission there is some truth to the forgery accusations.
Assuming that's true, Obama must really be fit to be tied! If the current crop of whiz kids from DC plus Yablonzky--especially given their shoddy, disrepectful forays--can't muster to make an appearance without risking their law licenses or reputation, whatever string of flunkies would do show up to risk their families' livelihoods, don't portend to be anything beyond corrupt, junk-yard-dog legal hounds.
HF
P.S. Feeling it here similarly with your dad (though without all his knowledge).
IF there was a trial and then a decision the defendant would have 30 days to bring it the GASC. But because this is a default judgement there is nothing to appeal.
That’s awesome if that’s how this goes down.
Any indication when the judge will issue his recommendation to the SoS?
If Obama cannot get on the ballot, what it means is that the Democrat Electors cannot get on the ballot.
You sure make lots of ass umptions, doofus. At 66, I lived through that era wide awake to the current events. Get stuffed with your little effort to divert attention from your not so stealthy agenda by trying to impugn me. Bwahahahaha, you liberal agitprops are all alike.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838364/posts
Read more at: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138. By Craig Andresen.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Gogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
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.