Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Obama Is In Default -- Eligibility Case Will Be Heard; Where is birth certificate
Topic Started: Jul 14 2009, 07:21 PM (12,070 Views)
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

retiredLEO
Oct 19 2009, 03:34 PM
I never heard of this law firm, but this was posted there and on the obama file website.

http://www.panamalaw.org/federal_court_case_to_make_obama_prove_eligibility_marches_on.html
Leo this is what I found when I googled panamalaw.org scam.

http://www.panamalaw.org/panama_foundation_scams.html


When you google panama law firms this is what you get:

http://www.offshorelegal.org/panama/panama-living/panama-law-firms-and-lawyers.html
Edited by Kerri P., Oct 19 2009, 03:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

Kerri, I sent them an email, let's see if they respond.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brittany


30%

obama file.com
Obama Was Not Born In U.S., Republicans Say

Three-in-ten Americans think their current head of state was not born in the United States, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 70 per cent of respondents believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S., while 30 per cent do not.

While only 13 per cent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 per cent among Independents and 51 per cent among Republican Party backers.

In American elections, candidates require 270 votes in the Electoral College to win the White House. In November 2008, Democratic nominee Obama secured a majority of electoral votes, defeating Republican candidate John McCain. In January, Obama became the first African American president in U.S. history.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes that only "natural born" American citizens are eligible to become presidents.

Last year, the Obama campaign team released a Certification of Live Birth, which states that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961. The State of Hawaii only allows for the release of an original birth certificate under "extenuating circumstances."

Earlier this month, former House majority leader Tom Delay discussed his views on Obama’s birth, saying, "Why wouldn’t the president of the United States show the American people his birth certificate? You have to show a birth certificate to play Little League baseball. It’s a question that should be answered. It’s in the Constitution that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be president."

Polling Data

As you may have heard over the last few months, there have been groups demanding to see President Obama’s birth certificate. Do you believe that Obama was born in the United States of America or not?
snip

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
foxglove

brittany
Oct 18 2009, 02:35 PM
Reports of multiple social security numbers for Barack Obama and his mother are very mysterious.

Also interesting is that Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, worked for the Ford Foundations and knew Timothy Geithner's father.

"Stanley Ann spent a good deal of her time away from her son, doing 'field work' in places like Indonesia for the Ford Foundation and other agencies. Further research indicates she, or someone using her name, had worked with the Ford Foundation in New York, and that someone using her name was still working with the Ford Foundation after her alleged death."

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Ann_Stanley_1277727119.aspx
Edited by foxglove, Oct 23 2009, 09:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

From: www.theobamafile.com

I believe he was born in the U.S.
All: 70%
Dem: 87%
Rep: 49%
Ind: 75%

I do not believe he was born in the U.S.
All: 30%
Dem: 13%
Rep: 51%
Ind: 25%


Source: Angus Reid Strategies

Methodology: Online interviews with 1,009 American adults, conducted from Oct. 15 to Oct. 17, 2009. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.
Edited by retiredLEO, Oct 23 2009, 02:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

I find it amazing that more people don't think Obama was born in the USA, 30% then those that strongly approve his performance 29%


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

Governments request to dismiss case of eligibility turned down

Breaking News October 23, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Gary Kreep, Keyes v Obama, Lawyers, Legal Cases, Orly Taitz.
trackback
Es increíble! ¡Orly Taitz ha ganado! ¡Come mierda, Obama!

By WIRE SERVICES

Story Published: Oct 23, 2009 at 8:50 PDT

SANTA ANA — In a move that has the Plantiffs “amazingly overjoyed,” Judge David O. Carter has turned down the Government’s motion for Dismissal in the case of Barnett vs. Obama.

“This is a victory for democracy and the people of America,” Rancho Santa Margarita-based attorney Orly Taitz said after this morning’s early meeting in the Judge’s offices.

“This means that, come January, the President of the United States will be forced to come into this same courtroom and explain his massive fraud to the American people.”

Taitz represents Capt. Pamela Barnett and other military officers who question orders from the commander in chief, as well as Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes. She has tried similar lawsuits elsewhere, but has failed, most recently in Georgia, where U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land not only rejected the lawsuit Taitz filed, but then fined her $20,000 for filing a “frivolous” appeal.

Taitz is joined in this lawsuit by Ramona-based lawyer Gary G. Kreep, who unsuccessfully tried to sever his case from hers.

“I’m astounded, quite frankly,” Kreep commented. “I really thought, after the last Court session, that we weren’t going to get this far. I guess I should have given Judge Carter more credit than I did.”

The case revolves around whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States. In the previous hearing, in which the Government presented its Motion to Dismiss the case, Carter seemed skeptical that a courtroom was the appropriate place for such a matter to be decided.

Department of Justice attorneys Roger West and David DeJute had argued that only Congress can remove a president through impeachment. The only way the courts could be involved was to have the chief justice of the Supreme Court preside over the impeachment trial.

Both West and DeJute refused to comment.

*More Updates Coming*

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/news-from-the-birfers/

The highlighted argument seems to be pretty weak, if he wasn't elegible in the first place to even run. He wouldn't be POTUS and couldn't be impeached.
Edited by retiredLEO, Oct 24 2009, 03:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genny6348
Genny6348
My guess is that this process will reveal more questions than answers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brittany

retiredLEO
Oct 24 2009, 03:35 PM
Governments request to dismiss case of eligibility turned down

Breaking News October 23, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Gary Kreep, Keyes v Obama, Lawyers, Legal Cases, Orly Taitz.
trackback
Es increíble! ¡Orly Taitz ha ganado! ¡Come mierda, Obama!

By WIRE SERVICES

Story Published: Oct 23, 2009 at 8:50 PDT

SANTA ANA — In a move that has the Plantiffs “amazingly overjoyed,” Judge David O. Carter has turned down the Government’s motion for Dismissal in the case of Barnett vs. Obama.

“This is a victory for democracy and the people of America,” Rancho Santa Margarita-based attorney Orly Taitz said after this morning’s early meeting in the Judge’s offices.

“This means that, come January, the President of the United States will be forced to come into this same courtroom and explain his massive fraud to the American people.”

Taitz represents Capt. Pamela Barnett and other military officers who question orders from the commander in chief, as well as Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes. She has tried similar lawsuits elsewhere, but has failed, most recently in Georgia, where U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land not only rejected the lawsuit Taitz filed, but then fined her $20,000 for filing a “frivolous” appeal.

Taitz is joined in this lawsuit by Ramona-based lawyer Gary G. Kreep, who unsuccessfully tried to sever his case from hers.

“I’m astounded, quite frankly,” Kreep commented. “I really thought, after the last Court session, that we weren’t going to get this far. I guess I should have given Judge Carter more credit than I did.”

The case revolves around whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States. In the previous hearing, in which the Government presented its Motion to Dismiss the case, Carter seemed skeptical that a courtroom was the appropriate place for such a matter to be decided.

Department of Justice attorneys Roger West and David DeJute had argued that only Congress can remove a president through impeachment. The only way the courts could be involved was to have the chief justice of the Supreme Court preside over the impeachment trial.

Both West and DeJute refused to comment.

*More Updates Coming*

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/news-from-the-birfers/

The highlighted argument seems to be pretty weak, if he wasn't elegible in the first place to even run. He wouldn't be POTUS and couldn't be impeached.
Hashat report been verified?

Like the comment I love being a birther.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brittany



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114411


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BORN IN THE USA?
Judge dismisses California eligibility challenge
Plaintiffs promise appeal of ruling protecting Obama

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 29, 2009
2:02 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily




A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama's eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to an Internet image of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama's campaign.

The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from eligibility challenges.

A Wikipedia page has been cited by dozens of bloggers after it listed Siddarth Velamoor as one of the newest law clerks for Carter – who today released his ruling dismissing the complaint in the Barnett v. Obama case in the Central District, Southern Division Court in Santa Ana, Calif.

Velamoor is also listed in the Martindale lawyer database as an associate of international law firm Perkins Coie, the same law firm of Robert Bauer – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – and the same Washington, D.C., lawyer who defended President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.

As WND has reported, Federal Election Commission records for "Obama for America" show that the lobby organization has paid Perkins Coie $1,666,397.01 since the 2008 election.
snip
Carter's dismissal revolved around his determination that the plaintiffs lacked "standing" to bring the complaint, including those plaintiffs who were third-party candidates in the 2008 presidential election.

"The court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate's qualifications, while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election," he said.

He warned, "Defendants' argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the court to pass judgment that plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference.

"This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results," he said.

But he also said once Obama was sworn into office on Jan. 20, the question no longer was over a potentially ineligible candidate but of the removal of a sitting president.

Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, hours before the complaint was filed. However, Obama also took the oath of office the next day, on Jan. 21, after the complaint was filed, because he stumbled over the words during the Jan. 20 event.

"In order to cure plaintiffs' perceived injury, the court would need to wade deep into the waters of the president's official duties – in fact, it would have to declare that the president could no longer perform any official duties. The separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave," Carter wrote.

He also cited the separation of powers doctrine and the Constitution's assignment of the power of impeaching a sitting president to Congress.

Carter cited Kreep's arguments that Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for president.

"There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment."

WND reported several days ago on a separate challenge to Obama's eligibility that also was taken to the appellate level.






Edited by brittany, Oct 31 2009, 06:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

I told all of you that the federal courts would cover 0bama's ass and let him stay dictator of this country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

This is a complicated mess in HOW the courts are determining it.

Not to pat myself on the back any (maybe just a pinch!), but I provided the online storage of the documents filed in the first suit of this nature. Such allowed the inexperienced blogger to LINK those documents.

The court's decision THEN was basically "no harm done, no foul", as he had NOT been elected yet.

Now that he is elected, it is TOO LATE, according to the latest court.

It is much more complicated than that, but the that is the basic outcome I am seeing.

In short order, there was no harm before the election, and now that there is, the court does not have the authority to do anything if he is not a "natural born" American.

I'm still lost on why the court can't DEMAND the original birth certificate in this situation. It is a crime IF he ran for office and was not born here. No immunity covers a crime, except a pardon by the president or the governor of the state in which the crime took place (which could require 50 governors).
Edited by kbp, Oct 31 2009, 10:52 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

And, In Hawaii, The DOH Lies


This information has been copied whole from butterdezillion blog -- there are a ton of links associated with this stuff at butterdezillion blog -- "DOH" is the acronym for Hawaii's Department of Health.

People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked by so many. The same way these "birther" red flags were not only overlooked but ridiculed:



1.1. DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules -- Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -- would allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy.

1.2. The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are 2 kinds of records -- records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling of those records.


Certificates are the record of the vital events. HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom. Far from barring "any disclosure" as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it. However, a public statement of where someone was born -- such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama -- is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).

All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest. Non-certified copies, abstracts, and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited -- which, according to Hawaii’s "Sunshine Law" (UIPA) means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .

Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.



1.3. Though ridiculing "birthers" publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries -- a fact the DOH has known since the beginning. Because processing information is subject to disclosure, the DOH was forced in Sept 2009 to reveal that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended (OIP interpretation) and that Obama or his representative has paid a fee to have his certificate amended. Amendments must be noted on the certificate (Ch 8b, 3.1), so the DOH has known this entire time that both the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are forgeries, since they have no amendment noted.

1.4. Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement. This includes the Department Of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), lieutenant governor’s office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate. Janice Okubo of the DOH seems to have stated that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate -- even that it’s a critical, very public forgery. The Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves. See no evil…

1.5. The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes. Minor administrative errors (such as typos) don’t remove the prima facie evidentiary value of a birth certificate, but such no-fault errors don’t result in a fee (Ch 8b 3.5C, 3.11, 3.1, & HRS 338-17) and Obama was charged a fee. Legal name changes also don’t affect the evidentiary value, but the lieutenant governor’s office has confirmed that there has been no legal name change for anyone named Obama, Dunham, Soetoro, or Sutoro.

1.6. Kapiolani Hospital received a letter signed by Obama on White House stationery and with raised seal claiming Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony. If he had been born in a Hawaii hospital the hospital itself would have been responsible for the content on the birth certificate and the DOH responsible for any clerical typos. The only way Obama would be charged for an amendment is:

a) if he or his representative claimed to have filled out the certificate themselves and erred, or

b) if Obama claimed the doctor’s testimony was wrong.

1.7. The DOH has broken Hawaii law to make rule changes (see July 11 addendum at bottom) that would protect Obama. In mid-June of 2009 the DOH stated that they will no longer issue long-form birth certificates (an action reported in real time by The Obama File). This is in direct violation of the current rules, without following HRS 91-3 mandates for an open process for rule changes -- the first of several such violations within the past year.

1.8. Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay. According to PHR Chapter 8b and HRS 338-17, only a judicial or administrative person or group can evaluate the accuracy of the claims when an amended document is presented as evidence. Obama has had many, many opportunities to present his birth certificate as evidence in lawsuits. He has refused -- even going so far as rescinding military orders rather than risk a judge seeing his birth certificate. There is no process by which Obama would present his records to Fukino as evidence.

1.9. Having made the illegal statement, Fukino refused to obey UIPA which required her to release the documents on which her statement was based.

1.10. The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least 2 years. The DOH says it no longer has the UIPA request or invoices showing Obama’s birth certificate was amended. The DOH’s own "Rules of Practice & Procedure" (11-1-30) say that documents must be stored as long as the case can be contested -- August, 2011 in this case.

1.11. Fukino averted discipline against herself by promoting the OIP director, who was replaced by the attorney who has designed the DOH’s deceptive responses. Six days after Leo Donofrio’s blog said he would ask OIP Director Tsukiyama for disciplinary action against Fukino and Okubo for their deception, Tsukiyama resigned from the OIP to take a promotion to a company on whose board of directors Fukino sits. He granted Cathy Takase’s request to have control of all DOH matters and asked her to replace him.



Now OIP is leaving HRS 338-18 rulings up to the DOH. All DOH responses contain deceptions #1 & 2, including disobeying their own rules for non-certified abbreviated copies of birth, marriage, and death certificates. They deny that documents exist which are required by law, such as descriptions of their forms, procedures, and instructions which are mandated in HRS 91, etc..

Red flags. This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations. The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud. All refused to act. Red flags.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Truth will EVENTUALLY come out. Maybe not in our lifetime... or Obama's. But it WILL come out.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

Breaking News – Obama Eligibility: $100,000 For Proof Of Eligibility – Cult Of COLBERS Realize Insufficiency Of Birth Announcement In Hawaiian Papers Done With COLB & Not Vault Long Form Birth Certificate.
Posted by: volubrjotr on: January 31, 2010


In: eligibility| obama Comment!
$100,000 offered for proof of eligibility
Businessman asks how president can issue orders ‘if he is not qualified’

10:04 pm Eastern

Jason Hommel
A man who runs a silver business and offers stock investment advice has announced he’s offering a reward of $100,000 for proof meeting that Barack Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States and, therefore, eligible to be president.

Jason Hommel announced the offer on his website.

“I, Jason Hommel, promise that I will give $100,000 to the first person who can prove to my satisfaction that Barack Obama, acting as president of the United States, is a ‘natural born’ citizen of the USA, which is a qualification to hold the office as indicated in the U.S. Constitution,” he wrote.

“Please prove that Obama is a ‘natural born’ US citizen, and put to rest the claims in lawsuits, as wnd.com reports, ‘that include contentions Obama was born in Kenya, wasn’t a ‘natural born’ citizen because of his father’s Kenyan citizenship, was a dual citizen and that his mother wasn’t old enough to transmit citizenship at birth. In addition, his citizenship is clouded by his move as a child to Indonesia and apparent adoption by an Indonesian citizen who married his mother.’”

Hommel told WND the offer has produced for him a flood of e-mails but no proof.

(Story continues below)

“I’ve gotten links to Hawaii’s recent press release, where they said, ‘trust us,’” he said. “I have received a lot of hate mail from people calling me a racist.”

But he contends there’s been no proof.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.

“I think our government has run amok, and they need to be held to account,” he said about his motive for the offer, which he said is legitimate.

“Money is relative,” he said.


In his offer, he said, “I’m optimistic that this might be the most important use of $100,000 that I’ve ever offered.”

“I know that WND had offered $10,000,” he said. ” I was in a position to offer 10 times that amount, so I figured I would.”

President Obama (White House photo
Hommel was referring to the offer from WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah for a $10,000 reward to anyone who can prove he or she was present at Obama’s birth.

“Barack Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961,” explained Farah. “His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate – the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Therefore, in the interest of truth, justice and the Constitution, I am making the extraordinary offer to entice someone to come forward with the facts of his birth – whether it took place in Hawaii or elsewhere.”

Hommel said he wants to help stop the loss of freedoms in the U.S.
Edited by retiredLEO, Feb 1 2010, 06:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply