Republicans Cancel the Constitution
THROUGH A “BACKROOM POLITICAL DEAL”
by Lawrence Sellin, ©2011
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of the Post & Email.
Will this document survive those who thirst for power, prestige and the status quo?
(Sep. 29, 2011) — Supporting and defending the Constitution and upholding the rule of law are no longer items on the Republican agenda.
According to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court binding precedent in Minor vs. Happersett (1874), Barack Hussein Obama has never been eligible to be President of the United States.
To hide his ineligibility, Obama has produced a forged Certificate of Live Birth, uses a Social Security number not issued to him and condoned the distribution of a forged Selective Service registration.
Despite being fully aware of the overwhelming evidence corroborating Obama’s guilt, the Republican leadership has ordered its Congress members to ignore constituents’ requests for investigations.
The Republican strategy is to use the Big Stall to cover up the Big Lie.
Political expediency, complicity and fear are the drivers for Republican malfeasance.
Like Democrats, Congressional Republicans consider the Constitution an inconvenient obstacle to their exercise of power. They have long wanted a “flexible” and “living” Constitution, which can be reinterpreted according to their own whims or adjusted to whatever political winds might be blowing at the moment.
For years both Democrats and Republicans have attempted through Constitutional amendments to dilute Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which requires candidates for President and Vice President to be natural born citizens, that is, US citizens born to citizen parents at the time of birth.
Up until 2008, all such efforts failed.
For example, on July 10, 2003, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) proposed “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years” (Senate Joint Resolution 15).
The measure was known as the Arnold Amendment because it would permit Austrian-born, naturalized citizen, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, then a rising Republican star, to become President.
A similar and ongoing example of political expediency at the expense of the Constitution is the promotion of Marco Rubio as the 2012 Republican Vice Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, like Obama and Schwarzenegger, Rubio is not eligible because he is not a natural born citizen; his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
Having failed for years to amend the Constitution by legal means, the Democrats and Republicans grabbed the opportunity in 2008 to amend it through a backroom political deal.
The uncertainty about Senator John McCain’s eligibility for the Presidency was resolved in April 2008 by the bogus, non-binding Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by Obama, which declared McCain a natural born citizen.
The fact that Congress has no Constitutional authority to do such a thing was apparently completely irrelevant to that majestic body.
Having become complicit with the Democrats in violating the Constitution, the Republicans joined them in a deliberate campaign of disinformation and outright lies to hide their complicity, an effort which continues to this day.
It astonishes many Americans that, given the weight of evidence against Obama, none of the 535 members of Congress is willing to speak out.
Members of Congress are not leaders by any stretch of the imagination. They are frightened rabbits constantly sniffing the air for any scent of controversy that might endanger their comfortable lifestyles and lucrative pensions.
Once elected, the operative phrases are “don’t make waves” and “get along by going along.”
A “do nothing Congress” is, in fact, the status quo.
Serious issues are still decided behind closed doors by a small group of powerful and self-serving politicians owned by wealthy special interests.
The Republican leadership has already chosen the pursuit of power over upholding principles and political expediency over adhering to the Constitution.
If Obama is exposed before the 2012 election, it will not be the cowardly Republicans who do so, but the Democrats, who don’t want to go down with his sinking ship.
The country is facing the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War, yet the Republicans do nothing.
If Congressional Republicans are not willing to fulfill even the most basic of public responsibilities, that is, to respect their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, then what’s the point?
I see no reason to vote for any of them.
If the Republicans want to protect Obama and hide their complicity, while undermining the Constitution and the rule of law, then they can have him for a second term as their illegal President.
Sometimes it is better just to let a structure collapse and rebuild it, rather than try to maintain it on top of a rotten foundation.
Showing posts with label ineligible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ineligible. Show all posts
Friday, September 30, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The Three Most Significant Obama Eligibility Hurdles
FROM THIS WRITER’S PERSPECTIVE
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Is his birth certificate authentic? Does his birthplace matter?
(Sep. 15, 2011) — The three major reasons why Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to the U.S. presidency are:
1. Obama’s father was a foreign national and not a U.S. citizen. Extensive research has shown that the citizenship of the parents, or at least the father, is vital to the child’s being a “natural born Citizen,” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
This historical fact has been obscured and obliterated by those who support Obama’s faux presidency, perhaps purposely confusing “native born,” or born within the physical boundaries of the United States, with “natural born,” which means owing no allegiance to any other country. John Jay, one of the founding fathers, had been particularly concerned with foreign influence on the offices of the president and vice president. In order to be “natural born,” a person must have descended from parents, or at least a father, who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. The parents’ citizenship could have come about by their having been natural born Citizens themselves or having come legally to the United States and gone through the naturalization process legislated by Congress.
Obama himself has stated that he was born a British subject, as the British Nationality Act of 1948 dictated.
The issue of parental citizenship was raised in 1916 by Breckinridge Long, a lifelong Democrat and member of the Wilson administration, who contended that Wilson’s opponent in the 1916 election was not a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his foreign-citizen parents. The contender, Charles Evans Hughes, had been born on U.S. soil.
Chester Arthur, who became president after President James Garfield was assassinated, is reported to have concealed the fact that his father was not a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. If that was a requirement, then Arthur was eligible for neither the presidency nor the vice presidency, an issue which was raised by Atty. Arthur P. Hinman at the time. There is evidence that Chester Arthur was not a U.S. citizen at all, but rather, a subject of Great Britain.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) memos issued by Atty. Jack Maskell to assist members of Congress in responding to their constituents’ demand for proof of Obama’s eligibility and that of Sen. John McCain asserted that Obama was eligible because of his purported birth in Hawaii and that McCain was eligible because he had two U.S.-citizen parents, thereby utilizing a double standard. The initial CRS memo falsely states that the U.S. Supreme Court had “explained…over the course of a number of years” that a person’s birth within the U.S. determined his “natural born” status; rather, the case cited, Wong Kim Ark, actually decided on the issue of “citizenship” and not “natural born” citizenship.
2. Having used his birthplace as the basis for his claim of eligibility, there exists a plethora of evidence that even that contention is false. If it is true that Obama was born outside the country, then even his “native born” citizenship status, which would not qualify him for the presidency, is at issue. There is also a question of why Obama appears to be using a stolen Social Security number issued in the state of Connecticut where he never worked, lived, nor attended school and which has been flagged by the federal E-Verify system as “likely fraudulent.” If Obama were a “natural born Citizen,” why are there questions about his social security number?
3. The first CRS memo contended that the Certification of Live Birth which appeared on the internet in June 2008 was sufficient to prove Obama’s birth in Hawaii, yet another image was presented on April 27, 2011. If the latest birth certificate presented to the public by Obama is a forgery as many experts have claimed and which was predicted, then he is guilty of fraud, forgery, and possibly multiple felonies. While the Constitution does not specifically prohibit a person from serving as president if he is accused or even convicted of a crime, President Richard Nixon was forced to resign or face possible prison time following the revelations of his role in the Watergate scandal. Obama has been accused of treason by thousands of American citizens but refused to address the charge.
FROM THIS WRITER’S PERSPECTIVE
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Is his birth certificate authentic? Does his birthplace matter?
(Sep. 15, 2011) — The three major reasons why Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to the U.S. presidency are:
1. Obama’s father was a foreign national and not a U.S. citizen. Extensive research has shown that the citizenship of the parents, or at least the father, is vital to the child’s being a “natural born Citizen,” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
This historical fact has been obscured and obliterated by those who support Obama’s faux presidency, perhaps purposely confusing “native born,” or born within the physical boundaries of the United States, with “natural born,” which means owing no allegiance to any other country. John Jay, one of the founding fathers, had been particularly concerned with foreign influence on the offices of the president and vice president. In order to be “natural born,” a person must have descended from parents, or at least a father, who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. The parents’ citizenship could have come about by their having been natural born Citizens themselves or having come legally to the United States and gone through the naturalization process legislated by Congress.
Obama himself has stated that he was born a British subject, as the British Nationality Act of 1948 dictated.
The issue of parental citizenship was raised in 1916 by Breckinridge Long, a lifelong Democrat and member of the Wilson administration, who contended that Wilson’s opponent in the 1916 election was not a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his foreign-citizen parents. The contender, Charles Evans Hughes, had been born on U.S. soil.
Chester Arthur, who became president after President James Garfield was assassinated, is reported to have concealed the fact that his father was not a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. If that was a requirement, then Arthur was eligible for neither the presidency nor the vice presidency, an issue which was raised by Atty. Arthur P. Hinman at the time. There is evidence that Chester Arthur was not a U.S. citizen at all, but rather, a subject of Great Britain.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) memos issued by Atty. Jack Maskell to assist members of Congress in responding to their constituents’ demand for proof of Obama’s eligibility and that of Sen. John McCain asserted that Obama was eligible because of his purported birth in Hawaii and that McCain was eligible because he had two U.S.-citizen parents, thereby utilizing a double standard. The initial CRS memo falsely states that the U.S. Supreme Court had “explained…over the course of a number of years” that a person’s birth within the U.S. determined his “natural born” status; rather, the case cited, Wong Kim Ark, actually decided on the issue of “citizenship” and not “natural born” citizenship.
2. Having used his birthplace as the basis for his claim of eligibility, there exists a plethora of evidence that even that contention is false. If it is true that Obama was born outside the country, then even his “native born” citizenship status, which would not qualify him for the presidency, is at issue. There is also a question of why Obama appears to be using a stolen Social Security number issued in the state of Connecticut where he never worked, lived, nor attended school and which has been flagged by the federal E-Verify system as “likely fraudulent.” If Obama were a “natural born Citizen,” why are there questions about his social security number?
3. The first CRS memo contended that the Certification of Live Birth which appeared on the internet in June 2008 was sufficient to prove Obama’s birth in Hawaii, yet another image was presented on April 27, 2011. If the latest birth certificate presented to the public by Obama is a forgery as many experts have claimed and which was predicted, then he is guilty of fraud, forgery, and possibly multiple felonies. While the Constitution does not specifically prohibit a person from serving as president if he is accused or even convicted of a crime, President Richard Nixon was forced to resign or face possible prison time following the revelations of his role in the Watergate scandal. Obama has been accused of treason by thousands of American citizens but refused to address the charge.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Why Obama Must Be Criminally Prosecuted, Not Impeached
OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY RENDERS HIS OATH OF OFFICE A CRIMINAL ACT
by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
Why has Obama not addressed the multiple charges of treason which have been brought against him? Why won't the U.S. attorneys?
(Jul. 17, 2011) — A perjured oath is no oath at all.
Persons not eligible to take an oath of office, knowing they are disqualified from legally holding that office, are called infiltrators, or traitors.
Persons who knowingly take an oath, when at the time swearing that oath knowing they never intend to obey their oath, find no comfort or protection from the oath once discovered as infiltrators, or traitors.
Even those who lawfully and in good faith take an oath, who later turn against that oath, then forfeit any protections they may have otherwise enjoyed under their oath.
No one–I SAY AGAIN, NO ONE–is immunized from being held to a criminal consequence having been found guilty in TREASON against the United States of America.
Barring Mr. OBAMA from enjoying the protection our Constitution offers regarding IMPEACHMENT does not vacate or weaken the process of IMPEACHMENT, but rather confers upon the process of IMPEACHMENT the proper legitimacy, sanctity and integrity the process of IMPEACHMENT must otherwise command.
Mr. OBAMA is charged with the crime of TREASON for over two years now. Mr. OBAMA accepts the accusation as correct by way of his silence.
Mr. OBAMA can be “perp-walked” out of the White House with an overcoat covering his handcuffs and walked into a federal courthouse to face a jury of his peers on the change of TREASON, just like any other person owing allegiance to the United States of America.
Mr. OBAMA enjoys no special protection!
To suggest that OBAMA somehow stands outside our fundamental laws is to argue in favor of the disconnection from, and the destruction of, our United States Constitution.
Under the Constitution I pledged my oath to, NO MAN STANDS ABOVE THE LAW!
OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY RENDERS HIS OATH OF OFFICE A CRIMINAL ACT
by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
Why has Obama not addressed the multiple charges of treason which have been brought against him? Why won't the U.S. attorneys?
(Jul. 17, 2011) — A perjured oath is no oath at all.
Persons not eligible to take an oath of office, knowing they are disqualified from legally holding that office, are called infiltrators, or traitors.
Persons who knowingly take an oath, when at the time swearing that oath knowing they never intend to obey their oath, find no comfort or protection from the oath once discovered as infiltrators, or traitors.
Even those who lawfully and in good faith take an oath, who later turn against that oath, then forfeit any protections they may have otherwise enjoyed under their oath.
No one–I SAY AGAIN, NO ONE–is immunized from being held to a criminal consequence having been found guilty in TREASON against the United States of America.
Barring Mr. OBAMA from enjoying the protection our Constitution offers regarding IMPEACHMENT does not vacate or weaken the process of IMPEACHMENT, but rather confers upon the process of IMPEACHMENT the proper legitimacy, sanctity and integrity the process of IMPEACHMENT must otherwise command.
Mr. OBAMA is charged with the crime of TREASON for over two years now. Mr. OBAMA accepts the accusation as correct by way of his silence.
Mr. OBAMA can be “perp-walked” out of the White House with an overcoat covering his handcuffs and walked into a federal courthouse to face a jury of his peers on the change of TREASON, just like any other person owing allegiance to the United States of America.
Mr. OBAMA enjoys no special protection!
To suggest that OBAMA somehow stands outside our fundamental laws is to argue in favor of the disconnection from, and the destruction of, our United States Constitution.
Under the Constitution I pledged my oath to, NO MAN STANDS ABOVE THE LAW!
Sunday, August 1, 2010
A Constitutional Crisis
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The Post & Email
AMERICA IN DISTRESS…WHO WILL ANSWER HER CALL?
by drkate, ©2010
(Aug. 1, 2010) — For the first time in its history, the United States government has knowingly allowed a constitutionally-ineligible individual to break into and occupy the White House. All the branches of government have been involved, along with the media: the legislative branch by failing to do its constitutional duty; the judicial branch by thwarting any attempt to have the facts heard; the Executive branch by using taxpayer funds and the color of authority to defend the usurpation.
The media, in collaboration with private unelected officials and elected officials, have ensured a blackout of news and information on this most fundamental matter to the American public. The State governments also obliged the usurpation with a collective failure to ensure the integrity of the 2008 election. In 2008, all Americans were disenfranchised as a result of this dereliction of duty, in certain cases with malice aforethought.
The natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was written with the national security interests of the United States as its focus. In order to ensure that the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces was loyal ONLY to the United States, the natural born citizen clause requires the President to be born on United States soil, to two citizen parents; have 14 years residency in the United States, and be 35 years of age. Mr. Obama fails the threshold test of being born to two U.S. citizen parents, as his father was a British National and Kenyan.
America in distress
The violation of this particular clause of the Constitution, above all others, arguably is the most serious ever in United States history, for it has allowed the invasion of the White House and our armed forces by a foreign power. This should alarm every American. Nothing the federal government does at this point has authority of law inasmuch as its titular head is illegally occupying the White House. We are extremely vulnerable to attack, blackmail, and extortion as a result of this egregious dereliction of duty. Congress’ duty to investigate the usurpation, and to have prevented it, is not a ministerial duty, it is an obligation. An on-going one. They all know, and now cannot evade their responsibility.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution reserve to the states and the people powers not enumerated to the government; and the Declaration of Independence requires that to be true to liberty, forms of government in contradiction to it must be altered or abolished. If the current federal government will not protect the states and the people, it is our duty to create a federal government that can.
Americans across the country are uniting September 7-9 to draw attention to the constitutional crisis we are in because of the illegal, and treasonous, usurpation of the Presidency.
The Mission in September
Faced with this stark reality, many patriots have called for specific action in Washington, and across the Nation, to alert the public to:
* The fundamental ineligibility of Barack Obama for the Presidency,
* The heroes in the military who are upholding their oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic;
* The massive evidence of ineligibility, election fraud, and media complicity
* The responsibility of the Congress, Judiciary, and the Executive in allowing this usurpation and their obligation to investigate and take action to safeguard the United States immediately
* The danger that America faces with an ineligible Commander in Chief
* What we want Congress, the Executive and Judiciary to do
Specific Events (tentative):
* Monday, September 6, 8:30 pm. Candlelight vigil and opening ceremony TBA
* Tuesday, Sept. 7, 11:30 am. Walter Reed Memorial Hospital. Honoring Constitutional heroes
* Wednesday, Sept. 8, 8:30 am. Capitol Steps; House and Senate Office Buildings. Specific meetings with Republicans; public script and literature hand out, signage at key office buildings
* Thursday, Sept. 9, 8:30 am. Justice Department demonstration; White House, Supreme Court
We also intend to honor the heroes amongst us, including Reverend Manning and the Constitutional attorneys and clients who have brought forth action to remove the usurper.
We intend to convey our seriousness through our signage, discussions, literature, behavior, and singularity of message. And this is an on-going, rolling, velvet revolution. We encourage all Patriotic Americans to demonstrate their concern with similar actions across the country.
For more information, please see:
* The Silver Bullet
* The President’s Disability under the 25th Amendment
* Stop them Cold: The Usurpathon
* Calling All Patriots: Stop the Treason Campaign
* Dr Kate’s Platoon Takes the Hill
Please see drkatesview for regular updates on the project.
If you would like to participate in the planning, the event itself, similar state actions, or other ideas, please drop me an email at drkatesview@gmail.com
CHARGE! STOP THEM COLD!
© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The Post & Email
AMERICA IN DISTRESS…WHO WILL ANSWER HER CALL?
by drkate, ©2010
(Aug. 1, 2010) — For the first time in its history, the United States government has knowingly allowed a constitutionally-ineligible individual to break into and occupy the White House. All the branches of government have been involved, along with the media: the legislative branch by failing to do its constitutional duty; the judicial branch by thwarting any attempt to have the facts heard; the Executive branch by using taxpayer funds and the color of authority to defend the usurpation.
The media, in collaboration with private unelected officials and elected officials, have ensured a blackout of news and information on this most fundamental matter to the American public. The State governments also obliged the usurpation with a collective failure to ensure the integrity of the 2008 election. In 2008, all Americans were disenfranchised as a result of this dereliction of duty, in certain cases with malice aforethought.
The natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was written with the national security interests of the United States as its focus. In order to ensure that the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces was loyal ONLY to the United States, the natural born citizen clause requires the President to be born on United States soil, to two citizen parents; have 14 years residency in the United States, and be 35 years of age. Mr. Obama fails the threshold test of being born to two U.S. citizen parents, as his father was a British National and Kenyan.
America in distress
The violation of this particular clause of the Constitution, above all others, arguably is the most serious ever in United States history, for it has allowed the invasion of the White House and our armed forces by a foreign power. This should alarm every American. Nothing the federal government does at this point has authority of law inasmuch as its titular head is illegally occupying the White House. We are extremely vulnerable to attack, blackmail, and extortion as a result of this egregious dereliction of duty. Congress’ duty to investigate the usurpation, and to have prevented it, is not a ministerial duty, it is an obligation. An on-going one. They all know, and now cannot evade their responsibility.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution reserve to the states and the people powers not enumerated to the government; and the Declaration of Independence requires that to be true to liberty, forms of government in contradiction to it must be altered or abolished. If the current federal government will not protect the states and the people, it is our duty to create a federal government that can.
Americans across the country are uniting September 7-9 to draw attention to the constitutional crisis we are in because of the illegal, and treasonous, usurpation of the Presidency.
The Mission in September
Faced with this stark reality, many patriots have called for specific action in Washington, and across the Nation, to alert the public to:
* The fundamental ineligibility of Barack Obama for the Presidency,
* The heroes in the military who are upholding their oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic;
* The massive evidence of ineligibility, election fraud, and media complicity
* The responsibility of the Congress, Judiciary, and the Executive in allowing this usurpation and their obligation to investigate and take action to safeguard the United States immediately
* The danger that America faces with an ineligible Commander in Chief
* What we want Congress, the Executive and Judiciary to do
Specific Events (tentative):
* Monday, September 6, 8:30 pm. Candlelight vigil and opening ceremony TBA
* Tuesday, Sept. 7, 11:30 am. Walter Reed Memorial Hospital. Honoring Constitutional heroes
* Wednesday, Sept. 8, 8:30 am. Capitol Steps; House and Senate Office Buildings. Specific meetings with Republicans; public script and literature hand out, signage at key office buildings
* Thursday, Sept. 9, 8:30 am. Justice Department demonstration; White House, Supreme Court
We also intend to honor the heroes amongst us, including Reverend Manning and the Constitutional attorneys and clients who have brought forth action to remove the usurper.
We intend to convey our seriousness through our signage, discussions, literature, behavior, and singularity of message. And this is an on-going, rolling, velvet revolution. We encourage all Patriotic Americans to demonstrate their concern with similar actions across the country.
For more information, please see:
* The Silver Bullet
* The President’s Disability under the 25th Amendment
* Stop them Cold: The Usurpathon
* Calling All Patriots: Stop the Treason Campaign
* Dr Kate’s Platoon Takes the Hill
Please see drkatesview for regular updates on the project.
If you would like to participate in the planning, the event itself, similar state actions, or other ideas, please drop me an email at drkatesview@gmail.com
CHARGE! STOP THEM COLD!
© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Traitor
Simply nothing more than a Traitor! - Thanks Charles
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The American Jingoist A Blog for Patriotic Americans Published
TraitorFriends,
SO!!! Are all those “birthers” so wrong? JB Williams sets it straight. Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen! He is therefore an illegitimate President. By the very fact that he violates the Constitution he has sworn to uphold he becomes simply nothing more than a…TRAITOR!
Regards
KAFIR
The Unbeliever
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22262
The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen
By JB Williams Wednesday, April 21, 2010
I write this follow up in response to reader mail regarding my column DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office. Even many conservative columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear.
History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.
The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.
Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.
As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.
However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;
The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.
The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”
The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”
And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”
Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.
The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.
A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.
Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”
Only the people can decide…
But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.
If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.
If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.
Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The American Jingoist A Blog for Patriotic Americans Published
TraitorFriends,
SO!!! Are all those “birthers” so wrong? JB Williams sets it straight. Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen! He is therefore an illegitimate President. By the very fact that he violates the Constitution he has sworn to uphold he becomes simply nothing more than a…TRAITOR!
Regards
KAFIR
The Unbeliever
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22262
The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen
By JB Williams Wednesday, April 21, 2010
I write this follow up in response to reader mail regarding my column DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office. Even many conservative columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear.
History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.
The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.
Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.
As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.
However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;
The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.
The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”
The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”
And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”
Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.
The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.
A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.
Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”
Only the people can decide…
But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.
If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.
If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.
Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Grand Jury Criminal Presentments
Below in webpage format [.html] are the October 7th Super Grand Jury II Presentments. This page is for viewing only and should not be used for printing or serving formal documents.
If you would like to request the Presentments in the form of a .PDF download please use the buttom below.
Copyright © 2009 American Grand Jury - All rights reserved.
http://americangrandjury.org/public/
The State of ___________________
Jurisdiction: ____________________
Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama,
Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama,
aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry
Obama; aka: Barack Obama, presumed
President of theUnited States;
Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC;
Democratic National Convention, et al.
____________________________
Defendants �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Received by:
(Court stamp or person's name and signature)
Grand Jury Presentments
Re: Fraud (eligibility), Treason and Election Fraud
WARNING: These are Grand Jury Criminal Presentments. These documents are NOT a lawsuit or a Court filing. The Court named in the Jurisdiction above is being SERVED said Criminal Presentments according to the Constitutional rights as guaranteed to the Citizens of the United States of America.
Any Court clerk, employee, representative, Judge, Prosecutor or Officer of the Court that refuses to accept these Presentments can be held accountable for violating Constitutional law. Such violation may include "Obstruction of Justice" or "Misprision of Treason or Felony." Judicial Article III Courts are required to review and respond to these Presentments.
Jurisdiction: Article III Courts cannot abdicate their own Jurisdiction.
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
The "shall extend to all Cases" is a mandatory statement, as much as it is a universal one. If the Court refuses to extend its jurisdiction to all Cases, then it is acting unconstitutionally. The "arising under this Constitution", clearly explains that it is the duty of the Court to uphold the Constitution.
For the Court to refuse to uphold the Constitution, or the constitutional exercise of authority by the other 2 branches of government, for any reason whatsoever, is innately unconstitutional, because it is directly contrary to the duty of the Article III Judiciary.
Standing: When a crime is committed where such action expressly violates the Constitution, then first, there must be a determination if such action was unconstitutional; if it was, then all citizens should have standing by virtue of the 9th Amendment, which expressly reserves to "We the People" any right not specified in the Constitution. And since there is no right granted in the constitution, for any branch [or person] to violate the constitution, the people retain the right to see that it is enforced.
The Grand Jury Presentments presented herein have been handed down by virtue of the rights vested under Amendment 1 and 5:
Amendment I of the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment V of the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..
Constitutional "standing" regarding these presentments is therefore vested with the People.
Such standing by the People shall then require that the Judicial Court determine if the criminal activity being charged in said Presentments are indeed in violation of Constitutional law and if so, the Court must act to prosecute such charges.
PRESENTMENTS Served by Name: ______________________
Address (state and zip only): ______________________
Serving Person's Signature: _____________________
Attachments hereto are made a part hereof:
1) Grand Jury Presentments
2) Evidence as noted by Exhibits
State of ______________________
County of ______________________
On this, the __________ day of _______________, 2009, before me a notary public, the undersigned, personally appeared ________________________________ , known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document, and acknowledged that he/she is the person that served said Presentments to the Court as stated herein.
In witness hereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
__________________________
Notary Public
Contact Information - Please contact the following person for responses, motions, or questions regarding these Presentments:
Robert Campbell
American Grand Jury
Nogales, AZ 85628
Presentments: American Grand Jury
October 7, 2009
On October 7, 2009 the American Grand Jury concluded its final day of deliberations and handed down presentments with regard to CRIMINAL activity, complaints and allegations presented before the Super Grand Jury II [hereinafter known as "Grand Jury"].
Such charges and presentments of criminal activity were handed down against the person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States [hereinafter known as "Obama"]; Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC; Democratic National Convention; et al.
Said Grand Jury was duly organized and empowered under the laws of the Constitution of United States of America as follows:
Scope and Authority of the Grand Jury
The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1 and Amendment 5, known as portions of the Bill of Rights state as follows:
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution, Amendments 1 and 5, Bill of Rights.
The convened Grand Jury was "national" in nature, represented by people of the United States, said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury:
Each Jury member was eligible as follows:
1) A citizen of the United States;
2) A citizen of eighteen (18) years or older;
3) A resident of a State chartered within the United States of America;
4) Was in possession of his/her natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and of fair character;
5) Possessed a sufficient knowledge of the English language;
6) Were not serving as a trial juror in any court;
7) Had not been convicted of a malfeasance in office, a felony, or other high crime;
8) Were not serving as an elected public officer.
Each Jury member did SWEAR or AFFIRM as follows:
"That I (jury member) shall diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all such matters as may be given me before the jury, or shall come to my knowledge, touching such service. I shall present no person through prejudice or ill will, nor leave any un-presented through fear or favor, but in all my presentments shall endeavor to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (affirmed) or so help me God (sworn)."
Said affirmation or sworn oath was duly subscribed by appearance of each jury member before a notary public whereby each jury member affirmed or swore the Oath of Office for service to the Grand Jury.
Each original jury member's "Oath of Office and Eligibility" document was sealed and recorded in a central location for purposes of empowering the Grand Jury.
A jury foreman (moderator) and alternate jury foreman were appointed to conduct the Grand Jury hearing.
Said Grand Jury hearing was conducted in secrecy. All evidence was sealed and protected. All presentments (charges) were voted upon. Said Grand Jury was comprised of 274 regular Grand Jury members, including 1 Jury Foremen and 1 Alternate Jury Foreman.
Criminal complaints placed before the Grand Jury:
COUNT ONE:
That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.
Said Article II, Section 1 states:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Wherefore, Obama is not a "natural born" Citizen for the following reasons:
1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens.
2) Obama was a British Citizen "at birth."
3) Obama was born in Kenya.
4) Obama's mother did not meet US Immigration laws necessary to pass US Citizenship to Obama.
See Count One "EVIDENCE" Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
COUNT TWO:
The charge of "Treason" against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.
Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer's SWORN duty to come forward and present such accusation and complaint;
The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy;
See Count Two "EVIDENCE" Exhibit 5 attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
COUNT THREE:
The Democratic National Convention in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC, has committed fraud against the electorate, the States and people of the United States. Pelosi, in conjunction with Barack Obama and others, conspired to withhold the truth about Obama's eligibility when vetting and subsequently nominating Obama on the DNC ticket.
See Count Three "EVIDENCE" Exhibits 6 and 7
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Deliberations of the Grand Jury hearing
Wherefore, the Grand Jury conducted its session over a period of 7 days from Wednesday, September 30, 2009 through Tuesday, October 6, 2009. The final voting days were conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, October 6th through October 7th, 2009.
The American Grand Jury met in closed session comprising an attendance of 274 jury members, including 1 regular Jury Foremen (moderator) and 1 Alternate Jury Foreman. The Jury Foreman who was the moderator did not vote. The final vote included 273 jury members. The final voting count was tabulated and attested to on Wednesday, October 7, 2009.
Such hearing was conducted online in a private website for the express purpose of conducting said Grand Jury assembly and hearing. Such hearing was secure and unencumbered by outside intervention or public intrusion.
Each Jury member had full access to the evidence, written and visible (in the form of scanned and photographed documents embedded in said private website). Each Jury member was given 7 days (in advance) in private session (using the facilities of the private website) to study the evidence, present questions and form an opinion as to the validity and truthfulness of said evidence.
All counts (as listed above) were voted upon by the 273 jury members.
All communications (email, chat messages, jury foreman messages, surveys, forum reviews, reports, testimony) were conducted in written English. All said communications were securely saved in a database server as permanent records.
The final votes were as follows: 273 members voted "YES" to hand down the Presentments against Obama. The voting was unanimous.
The Grand Jury concluded the hearing after handing down the final vote and affirming said counts and presentments.
The Presentments and such Remedies as prayed for by the Grand Jury
Now therefore:
The Grand Jury hereby prays the Court take said Presentments and formally charge and prosecute Obama under Count One: fraud against the people of the United States of America by reason of:
That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.
Furthermore, the Grand Jury hereby prays the Court will formally charge and prosecute Obama under Count Two: Treason against the Constitution and People of the United States as follows:
That the charge of "Treason" against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.
Furthermore, the Grand Jury hereby prays the Court will formally charge and prosecute Obama, Pelosi and the Democratic National Convention under Count Three: election fraud and conspiracy against the people of the United States of America as follows:
The Democratic National Convention in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC, has committed fraud against the electorate, the States and people of the United States. Pelosi, in conjunction with Barack Obama and others, conspired to withhold the truth about Obama's eligibility when vetting and subsequently nominating Obama on the DNC ticket.
Given on this day and year of October 7, 2009 by final vote of the Jury Members of said the Grand Jury.
Said presentments are hereby attested to and verified by the Jury Foremen and Alternate Jury Foreman on this day and year as first above mentioned:
image002.jpg
________________________________________________
Robert J. Campbell, Jury Foreman and Moderator
image003.jpg
________________________________________________
Mack Ellis, Alternate Jury Foreman
votes.jpg
votes2.jpg
EXHIBIT 1 - Evidence
Obama "forged" Birth Certificate.
The Obama campaign and election representatives before and after the election posted the document [seen below] on the Internet for millions to see. This document has no information on it that could possibly prove Obama is a "natural born" citizen. On top of that, this document has been proven over and over by experts to be "photo shopped" and a forgery.
image013.jpg
EXHIBIT 2 - Evidence
Obama Birth Certificate showing him born in Kenya.
On September 4, 2009, an Affidavit and Copy of a Obama's Certificate of Birth was filed with the United States District Court in Southern California, represented by Orly Taitz. This document clearly shows Obama was born in Kenya.
image014.jpg
EXHIBIT 3 - Evidence
A. Obama NOT born of two US citizen parents
B. Obama was a British citizen "at birth."
� - Under the British Nationality Act 1948[BNA 1948], Obama's father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya.
� - Obama's father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
� - Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo:
It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen.. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born" citizen.
EXHIBIT 4 - Evidence
Obama's mother did not meet US Immigration laws necessary to pass US Citizenship to Obama at time of birth.
� - Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress, et al.
79. There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien.
80. Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States.
81. Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama's birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father at the time of his birth.
82. At the time of his birth in 1961, under the applicable statute Obama also could not gain U.S. citizenship from his U.S. citizen mother due to her being only 18 years old at the time of his birth. ENDNOTE 15.
83. There also exists the possibility that if Obama had U.S. citizenship at birth, he lost that citizenship when his mother's second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, adopted/acknowledged him as his son and along with his mother took him to live in Indonesia and when he later traveled as a foreign citizen with a foreign passport to Pakistan after the age of majority [18] when he was approximately 20.
ENDNOTE 15: A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA, provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child).
Attorney Mario Apuzzo:
Obama's mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy the legal requirement of Section 301(g). Hence, if Obama was born in Kenya, under the Fourteenth Amendment, he is neither a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil nor one by naturalization. (There is no existing evidence that Obama was ever naturalized.) Nor would he qualify to be a U.S. citizen by any act of Congress by being born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent.
If this scenario were proven to be true, it can be reasonably argued that Obama is an illegal alien.
EXHIBIT 5 - Evidence
Fitzpatrick Treason Complaint filed with US Attorney Russell Dedrick and Assistant US Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District Tennessee.
image015.jpg
image016.jpg
EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC1
Fraudulent Nomination Document # 1 filed by the Democratic National Convention with 49 States' Election commissions.
image018.jpg
EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC2
Fraudulent Nomination Document # 2 filed by the Democratic National Convention with State of Hawaii Election Commission.
image020.jpg
EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC Details
Barack Obama refused throughout the vetting process to produce proof that he was a "natural born" citizen as required by the Constitution. On Obama's word alone, Nancy Pelosi caused documents to be signed and distributed to forty nine of the fifty States hiding the fact Obama was not eligible for nomination or election. Many others, including State DNC organizations, allowed the truth about Obama's eligibility to be hidden from the electorate and the public. The charge of fraud is now clearly a conspiracy of fraud against the electorate, public and the United States of America.
TWO nomination documents were prepared. The second document [DNC2] included the "Constitutional" certification within the declaration:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution..
Nancy Pelosi, the DNC and local State DNC Chapters filed the "non-Constitutional" certification document with the Election Commissions in forty-nine of the fifty States.
The two separate Nomination Certifications are complete with date stamps, matching signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication.
As a result of the "Constitutional" Nomination Certification not being filed with forty-nine States the Election Commissions within these States were defrauded as the truth about Obama's vetting and eligibility was purposely withheld, therefore misrepresented.
The 50th State, Hawaii, is a mystery as to why the DNC submitted the Constitutional Certification. It is assumed the State of Hawaii demanded the wording be included in the Certification. However, by filing this Constitutional "version" with Hawaii and not the other 49 States it ADDS to the fraud, conspiracy and guilt. Why would the DNC even prepare (2) documents? The issue still remains, Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and the vetting of him by the DNC was misrepresented and fraudulent.
Not only is this fraud, it is a conspiracy because multiple parties were involved.
EXHIBIT 7 - Evidence
Adding to the guilt and the intentional fraud conspired by the DNC, it should be recognized that the Republican National Convention (RNC) filed nomination documents with ALL 50 States declaring their national candidates as " meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office.."
image021.jpg
If you would like to request the Presentments in the form of a .PDF download please use the buttom below.
Copyright © 2009 American Grand Jury - All rights reserved.
http://americangrandjury.org/public/
The State of ___________________
Jurisdiction: ____________________
Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama,
Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama,
aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry
Obama; aka: Barack Obama, presumed
President of theUnited States;
Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC;
Democratic National Convention, et al.
____________________________
Defendants �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Received by:
(Court stamp or person's name and signature)
Grand Jury Presentments
Re: Fraud (eligibility), Treason and Election Fraud
WARNING: These are Grand Jury Criminal Presentments. These documents are NOT a lawsuit or a Court filing. The Court named in the Jurisdiction above is being SERVED said Criminal Presentments according to the Constitutional rights as guaranteed to the Citizens of the United States of America.
Any Court clerk, employee, representative, Judge, Prosecutor or Officer of the Court that refuses to accept these Presentments can be held accountable for violating Constitutional law. Such violation may include "Obstruction of Justice" or "Misprision of Treason or Felony." Judicial Article III Courts are required to review and respond to these Presentments.
Jurisdiction: Article III Courts cannot abdicate their own Jurisdiction.
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
The "shall extend to all Cases" is a mandatory statement, as much as it is a universal one. If the Court refuses to extend its jurisdiction to all Cases, then it is acting unconstitutionally. The "arising under this Constitution", clearly explains that it is the duty of the Court to uphold the Constitution.
For the Court to refuse to uphold the Constitution, or the constitutional exercise of authority by the other 2 branches of government, for any reason whatsoever, is innately unconstitutional, because it is directly contrary to the duty of the Article III Judiciary.
Standing: When a crime is committed where such action expressly violates the Constitution, then first, there must be a determination if such action was unconstitutional; if it was, then all citizens should have standing by virtue of the 9th Amendment, which expressly reserves to "We the People" any right not specified in the Constitution. And since there is no right granted in the constitution, for any branch [or person] to violate the constitution, the people retain the right to see that it is enforced.
The Grand Jury Presentments presented herein have been handed down by virtue of the rights vested under Amendment 1 and 5:
Amendment I of the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment V of the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..
Constitutional "standing" regarding these presentments is therefore vested with the People.
Such standing by the People shall then require that the Judicial Court determine if the criminal activity being charged in said Presentments are indeed in violation of Constitutional law and if so, the Court must act to prosecute such charges.
PRESENTMENTS Served by Name: ______________________
Address (state and zip only): ______________________
Serving Person's Signature: _____________________
Attachments hereto are made a part hereof:
1) Grand Jury Presentments
2) Evidence as noted by Exhibits
State of ______________________
County of ______________________
On this, the __________ day of _______________, 2009, before me a notary public, the undersigned, personally appeared ________________________________ , known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document, and acknowledged that he/she is the person that served said Presentments to the Court as stated herein.
In witness hereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
__________________________
Notary Public
Contact Information - Please contact the following person for responses, motions, or questions regarding these Presentments:
Robert Campbell
American Grand Jury
Nogales, AZ 85628
Presentments: American Grand Jury
October 7, 2009
On October 7, 2009 the American Grand Jury concluded its final day of deliberations and handed down presentments with regard to CRIMINAL activity, complaints and allegations presented before the Super Grand Jury II [hereinafter known as "Grand Jury"].
Such charges and presentments of criminal activity were handed down against the person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States [hereinafter known as "Obama"]; Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC; Democratic National Convention; et al.
Said Grand Jury was duly organized and empowered under the laws of the Constitution of United States of America as follows:
Scope and Authority of the Grand Jury
The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1 and Amendment 5, known as portions of the Bill of Rights state as follows:
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution, Amendments 1 and 5, Bill of Rights.
The convened Grand Jury was "national" in nature, represented by people of the United States, said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury:
Each Jury member was eligible as follows:
1) A citizen of the United States;
2) A citizen of eighteen (18) years or older;
3) A resident of a State chartered within the United States of America;
4) Was in possession of his/her natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and of fair character;
5) Possessed a sufficient knowledge of the English language;
6) Were not serving as a trial juror in any court;
7) Had not been convicted of a malfeasance in office, a felony, or other high crime;
8) Were not serving as an elected public officer.
Each Jury member did SWEAR or AFFIRM as follows:
"That I (jury member) shall diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all such matters as may be given me before the jury, or shall come to my knowledge, touching such service. I shall present no person through prejudice or ill will, nor leave any un-presented through fear or favor, but in all my presentments shall endeavor to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (affirmed) or so help me God (sworn)."
Said affirmation or sworn oath was duly subscribed by appearance of each jury member before a notary public whereby each jury member affirmed or swore the Oath of Office for service to the Grand Jury.
Each original jury member's "Oath of Office and Eligibility" document was sealed and recorded in a central location for purposes of empowering the Grand Jury.
A jury foreman (moderator) and alternate jury foreman were appointed to conduct the Grand Jury hearing.
Said Grand Jury hearing was conducted in secrecy. All evidence was sealed and protected. All presentments (charges) were voted upon. Said Grand Jury was comprised of 274 regular Grand Jury members, including 1 Jury Foremen and 1 Alternate Jury Foreman.
Criminal complaints placed before the Grand Jury:
COUNT ONE:
That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.
Said Article II, Section 1 states:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Wherefore, Obama is not a "natural born" Citizen for the following reasons:
1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens.
2) Obama was a British Citizen "at birth."
3) Obama was born in Kenya.
4) Obama's mother did not meet US Immigration laws necessary to pass US Citizenship to Obama.
See Count One "EVIDENCE" Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
COUNT TWO:
The charge of "Treason" against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.
Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer's SWORN duty to come forward and present such accusation and complaint;
The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy;
See Count Two "EVIDENCE" Exhibit 5 attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
COUNT THREE:
The Democratic National Convention in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC, has committed fraud against the electorate, the States and people of the United States. Pelosi, in conjunction with Barack Obama and others, conspired to withhold the truth about Obama's eligibility when vetting and subsequently nominating Obama on the DNC ticket.
See Count Three "EVIDENCE" Exhibits 6 and 7
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Deliberations of the Grand Jury hearing
Wherefore, the Grand Jury conducted its session over a period of 7 days from Wednesday, September 30, 2009 through Tuesday, October 6, 2009. The final voting days were conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, October 6th through October 7th, 2009.
The American Grand Jury met in closed session comprising an attendance of 274 jury members, including 1 regular Jury Foremen (moderator) and 1 Alternate Jury Foreman. The Jury Foreman who was the moderator did not vote. The final vote included 273 jury members. The final voting count was tabulated and attested to on Wednesday, October 7, 2009.
Such hearing was conducted online in a private website for the express purpose of conducting said Grand Jury assembly and hearing. Such hearing was secure and unencumbered by outside intervention or public intrusion.
Each Jury member had full access to the evidence, written and visible (in the form of scanned and photographed documents embedded in said private website). Each Jury member was given 7 days (in advance) in private session (using the facilities of the private website) to study the evidence, present questions and form an opinion as to the validity and truthfulness of said evidence.
All counts (as listed above) were voted upon by the 273 jury members.
All communications (email, chat messages, jury foreman messages, surveys, forum reviews, reports, testimony) were conducted in written English. All said communications were securely saved in a database server as permanent records.
The final votes were as follows: 273 members voted "YES" to hand down the Presentments against Obama. The voting was unanimous.
The Grand Jury concluded the hearing after handing down the final vote and affirming said counts and presentments.
The Presentments and such Remedies as prayed for by the Grand Jury
Now therefore:
The Grand Jury hereby prays the Court take said Presentments and formally charge and prosecute Obama under Count One: fraud against the people of the United States of America by reason of:
That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.
Furthermore, the Grand Jury hereby prays the Court will formally charge and prosecute Obama under Count Two: Treason against the Constitution and People of the United States as follows:
That the charge of "Treason" against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.
Furthermore, the Grand Jury hereby prays the Court will formally charge and prosecute Obama, Pelosi and the Democratic National Convention under Count Three: election fraud and conspiracy against the people of the United States of America as follows:
The Democratic National Convention in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC, has committed fraud against the electorate, the States and people of the United States. Pelosi, in conjunction with Barack Obama and others, conspired to withhold the truth about Obama's eligibility when vetting and subsequently nominating Obama on the DNC ticket.
Given on this day and year of October 7, 2009 by final vote of the Jury Members of said the Grand Jury.
Said presentments are hereby attested to and verified by the Jury Foremen and Alternate Jury Foreman on this day and year as first above mentioned:
image002.jpg
________________________________________________
Robert J. Campbell, Jury Foreman and Moderator
image003.jpg
________________________________________________
Mack Ellis, Alternate Jury Foreman
votes.jpg
votes2.jpg
EXHIBIT 1 - Evidence
Obama "forged" Birth Certificate.
The Obama campaign and election representatives before and after the election posted the document [seen below] on the Internet for millions to see. This document has no information on it that could possibly prove Obama is a "natural born" citizen. On top of that, this document has been proven over and over by experts to be "photo shopped" and a forgery.
image013.jpg
EXHIBIT 2 - Evidence
Obama Birth Certificate showing him born in Kenya.
On September 4, 2009, an Affidavit and Copy of a Obama's Certificate of Birth was filed with the United States District Court in Southern California, represented by Orly Taitz. This document clearly shows Obama was born in Kenya.
image014.jpg
EXHIBIT 3 - Evidence
A. Obama NOT born of two US citizen parents
B. Obama was a British citizen "at birth."
� - Under the British Nationality Act 1948[BNA 1948], Obama's father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya.
� - Obama's father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
� - Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo:
It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen.. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born" citizen.
EXHIBIT 4 - Evidence
Obama's mother did not meet US Immigration laws necessary to pass US Citizenship to Obama at time of birth.
� - Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress, et al.
79. There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien.
80. Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States.
81. Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama's birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father at the time of his birth.
82. At the time of his birth in 1961, under the applicable statute Obama also could not gain U.S. citizenship from his U.S. citizen mother due to her being only 18 years old at the time of his birth. ENDNOTE 15.
83. There also exists the possibility that if Obama had U.S. citizenship at birth, he lost that citizenship when his mother's second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, adopted/acknowledged him as his son and along with his mother took him to live in Indonesia and when he later traveled as a foreign citizen with a foreign passport to Pakistan after the age of majority [18] when he was approximately 20.
ENDNOTE 15: A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA, provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child).
Attorney Mario Apuzzo:
Obama's mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy the legal requirement of Section 301(g). Hence, if Obama was born in Kenya, under the Fourteenth Amendment, he is neither a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil nor one by naturalization. (There is no existing evidence that Obama was ever naturalized.) Nor would he qualify to be a U.S. citizen by any act of Congress by being born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent.
If this scenario were proven to be true, it can be reasonably argued that Obama is an illegal alien.
EXHIBIT 5 - Evidence
Fitzpatrick Treason Complaint filed with US Attorney Russell Dedrick and Assistant US Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District Tennessee.
image015.jpg
image016.jpg
EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC1
Fraudulent Nomination Document # 1 filed by the Democratic National Convention with 49 States' Election commissions.
image018.jpg
EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC2
Fraudulent Nomination Document # 2 filed by the Democratic National Convention with State of Hawaii Election Commission.
image020.jpg
EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC Details
Barack Obama refused throughout the vetting process to produce proof that he was a "natural born" citizen as required by the Constitution. On Obama's word alone, Nancy Pelosi caused documents to be signed and distributed to forty nine of the fifty States hiding the fact Obama was not eligible for nomination or election. Many others, including State DNC organizations, allowed the truth about Obama's eligibility to be hidden from the electorate and the public. The charge of fraud is now clearly a conspiracy of fraud against the electorate, public and the United States of America.
TWO nomination documents were prepared. The second document [DNC2] included the "Constitutional" certification within the declaration:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution..
Nancy Pelosi, the DNC and local State DNC Chapters filed the "non-Constitutional" certification document with the Election Commissions in forty-nine of the fifty States.
The two separate Nomination Certifications are complete with date stamps, matching signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication.
As a result of the "Constitutional" Nomination Certification not being filed with forty-nine States the Election Commissions within these States were defrauded as the truth about Obama's vetting and eligibility was purposely withheld, therefore misrepresented.
The 50th State, Hawaii, is a mystery as to why the DNC submitted the Constitutional Certification. It is assumed the State of Hawaii demanded the wording be included in the Certification. However, by filing this Constitutional "version" with Hawaii and not the other 49 States it ADDS to the fraud, conspiracy and guilt. Why would the DNC even prepare (2) documents? The issue still remains, Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and the vetting of him by the DNC was misrepresented and fraudulent.
Not only is this fraud, it is a conspiracy because multiple parties were involved.
EXHIBIT 7 - Evidence
Adding to the guilt and the intentional fraud conspired by the DNC, it should be recognized that the Republican National Convention (RNC) filed nomination documents with ALL 50 States declaring their national candidates as " meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office.."
image021.jpg
Thursday, December 3, 2009
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES SUPREME COURT
Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Barack Obama and State of Hawaii on the ropes... history
October 14, 2009 10:23 AM Portland Civil Rights Examiner Dianna Cotter
The latest legal turn out of Hawaii leaves very little wiggle room for the state.
On July 27th 2009 The Hawaii Department of Health in a press release declared that Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen.
Researcher Justin Riggs on July 29th was informed by email that Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett reviewed and approved the Statement released by DoH Director Fukino.
Attorney Leo Donofrio has been investigating the irregularities in the State of Hawaii at his blog Natural Born Citizen and has published a copy of the emails between Riggs and the Attorney General's office:
From: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
To: …janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov, [redacted other recipient]
…Ms. Okubo,
I am currently a masters degree candidate at …
The reason that I am contacting your organizations is that you are, as far as I can tell from my research, the only two groups that have openly stated that President Obama is a natural born citizen (one of the Article II, Section I qualifications for being President). I would like to document how you came to that conclusion: i.e. what the criteria is for your organization, what evidence the candidate provides, etc.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to receiving a response in the near future.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
Janice Okubo responded later that day:
From: Okubo, Janice S..
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…
Aloha Justin,
The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…
According to law, the State of Hawaii must now disclose how it came to the decision that is found in Director Fukino’s July 27th Press Release that was approved by the State’s Attorney General. Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney General must be made public. Further, the Hawaiian Office of Information Practices in 1991 formally set out the requirements that informal opinions of the AG must also be made available for public inspection. According to Donofrio, under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Rule 510): “when the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion are made public by the agency/client, then the accompanying record of that opinion must also be disclosed to the public:”
The State of Hawaii declared that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen and that this disclosure was approved by the Attorney General of the State. The State of Hawaii must now release any and all communications and documentation that led it to making this determination. Because Janice Okubo on July 29th revealed that the decision was approved by the State’s Attorney General, and the state made its Natural Born Citizen statement, the state is now required by law to disclose how it reached that conclusion. As Donofrio explains, there can be no secret law. The State of Hawaii cannot simply make a statement with legal weight, and then when asked to provide how it reached that decision, simply say: ‘You just have to trust us on that’. They must release any and all information that led them to make their public declarations.
On October 5th, Donofrio wrote to the office of the Attorney General, contacting Jill Nagamine:
Subject: Request for AG Opinion letter
Date: Monday, October 5, 2009 8:34 PM
From:”Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]
To: Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov
Dear Ms. Nagamine,
The following request for Government records is made pursuant to the UIPA.
I request a copy (or access to a copy) of the Attorney General Opinion Letter the Attorney General provided to Department of Health Director Fukino which reviewed and approved her July 27, 2009 statement/press release about President Barack Obama wherein it was stated that he is a “natural-born American citizen.”
I request the opinion letter referenced above whether it was prepared as a formal Opinion Letter under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3 (and/or any other authority) or as an informal letter if prepared under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 (and/or any other authority).
Please have your response conform to the OIP administrative rules.
A few hours later he received the following response:
Subject: Re Request for Ag Opinion letter
From: “Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov”
To: “Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]
Dear Mr. Donofrio:
No formal (emphasis added) attorney general opinion was generated relating to the July 27, 2009 public statement made by Chiyome L. Fukino, M.D. Any other legal advice rendered to our clients is privileged communication. We have nothing to release based on your request.
Very truly yours,
Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii
With all due respect to Ms Nagamine, this response is disingenuous in the extreme. First, Mr. Donofrio asked for all formal and informal communications. Under the law, the state has to release this information once any part of the resulting decisions are publically released, which happened on July 27th with Director Fukino’s Press Release, and again on July 29th When Janice Okubo informed Mr. Riggs that the Attorney General approved the statement. Second, Ms Nagamine’s response states that the informal communications are attorney client privilege, where none exists.
According to OIP Opinion letter 91-23, the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion made public by the agency or client (The Department of Health) the accompanying record of that opinion must be made public.
A client cannot voluntarily and selectively disclose those portions of a communication between the client and the client’s attorney without forfeiting the right to keep other portions of the communication on the same subject matter privileged.
The privilege may be said to be waived when the client relinquishes its protection. The waiver of this privilege follows as a consequence from any conduct by the client that would make it unfair for the client thereafter to assert the privilege. See generally, Marcus, The Perils of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84 Mich. L. Rev. 1065 (1986)
Similarly, under Rule 510 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, the holder of a privilege waives it if the privilege holder consents to the disclosure of “any significant part of the privileged matter.”
The response of Ms Nagamine is very clearly not addressing the informal communications between Director Fukino and the Attorney General. By law, the public has the right to see any communications between these two parties once the client, in this case the Department of Health, publically releases the conclusions reached through those communications.
Donofrio is currently filing an appeal with the OIP, and the Judiciary as well. Because of the nature of the law involved, Donofrio will get that judicial review in an expedited manner.
The State of Hawaii will soon be forced to reveal the information it used to declare Barack Obama a Natural Born citizen. This will be very interesting, considering Obama’s Father was a British Citizen. therefore Barack Obama Jr is also a British Citizen, and was at birth by the very nature of his parentage.
Barack Obama, by legal definitions going back to the 1600’s is not, was not, and never has been a Natural Born Citizen. It does not matter where Barack Obama was born; he was a dual American/British/Kenyan citizen. He could have been born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. itself, and it would not matter. The basic fact of Barack Obama’s parentage remains the same. A Dual Citizen cannot ever be a Natural Born Citizen.
There is absolutely no doubt.
There is an Usurper in the White House, and his name is Barack Obama. He and those who aided him in this usurpation, including the DNC are guilty of Treason to the United States. Every law that has been passed, every treaty signed, every order issued to the military has zero legal weight.
This leads to a singularly terrifying reality that must be dealt with. The United States does not have a constitutional government.
This is the reason the Democrats in Congress are pushing things through as fast as they possibly can, without reading and in the case of the Senate even writing the legislation they are voting on. Once it becomes public knowledge what the Democrats and the DNC have done in their fraud upon America with Barack Obama, they will not be able to get anything done. Rightly so.
This is a scandal and cover-up 100 times the size of Watergate. This time, it won’t be just a President resigning in disgrace, it will also be the DNC Leadership who will be under the criminal investigation microscope for the cover-up, and it is a scrutiny they cannot withstand.
This is the reason Barack Obama is doing everything he can to keep people focused on the irrelevant issue of his birth certificate. He would rather people be thinking about where he was born rather than the citizenship that was conferred upon him by his British father.
The smoke and mirrors have cleared. This is no longer a partisan issue, partisan issues are reserved for constitutional governments, which we do not have. There is only those who understand the peril we are in, and those who do not, and we are all Americans.
Now, what are we going to do about it?
For more info: Hawaii Department of Health press release, Natural Born Citizen, Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4, Hawaiian Office of Information Practices, OIP Opinion letter 91-23
For more info: Hawaii Department of Health press release, Natural Born Citizen, Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4, Hawaiian Office of Information Practices, OIP Opinion letter 91-23
October 14, 2009 10:23 AM Portland Civil Rights Examiner Dianna Cotter
The latest legal turn out of Hawaii leaves very little wiggle room for the state.
On July 27th 2009 The Hawaii Department of Health in a press release declared that Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen.
Researcher Justin Riggs on July 29th was informed by email that Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett reviewed and approved the Statement released by DoH Director Fukino.
Attorney Leo Donofrio has been investigating the irregularities in the State of Hawaii at his blog Natural Born Citizen and has published a copy of the emails between Riggs and the Attorney General's office:
From: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
To: …janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov, [redacted other recipient]
…Ms. Okubo,
I am currently a masters degree candidate at …
The reason that I am contacting your organizations is that you are, as far as I can tell from my research, the only two groups that have openly stated that President Obama is a natural born citizen (one of the Article II, Section I qualifications for being President). I would like to document how you came to that conclusion: i.e. what the criteria is for your organization, what evidence the candidate provides, etc.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to receiving a response in the near future.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
Janice Okubo responded later that day:
From: Okubo, Janice S..
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…
Aloha Justin,
The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…
According to law, the State of Hawaii must now disclose how it came to the decision that is found in Director Fukino’s July 27th Press Release that was approved by the State’s Attorney General. Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney General must be made public. Further, the Hawaiian Office of Information Practices in 1991 formally set out the requirements that informal opinions of the AG must also be made available for public inspection. According to Donofrio, under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Rule 510): “when the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion are made public by the agency/client, then the accompanying record of that opinion must also be disclosed to the public:”
The State of Hawaii declared that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen and that this disclosure was approved by the Attorney General of the State. The State of Hawaii must now release any and all communications and documentation that led it to making this determination. Because Janice Okubo on July 29th revealed that the decision was approved by the State’s Attorney General, and the state made its Natural Born Citizen statement, the state is now required by law to disclose how it reached that conclusion. As Donofrio explains, there can be no secret law. The State of Hawaii cannot simply make a statement with legal weight, and then when asked to provide how it reached that decision, simply say: ‘You just have to trust us on that’. They must release any and all information that led them to make their public declarations.
On October 5th, Donofrio wrote to the office of the Attorney General, contacting Jill Nagamine:
Subject: Request for AG Opinion letter
Date: Monday, October 5, 2009 8:34 PM
From:”Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]
To: Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov
Dear Ms. Nagamine,
The following request for Government records is made pursuant to the UIPA.
I request a copy (or access to a copy) of the Attorney General Opinion Letter the Attorney General provided to Department of Health Director Fukino which reviewed and approved her July 27, 2009 statement/press release about President Barack Obama wherein it was stated that he is a “natural-born American citizen.”
I request the opinion letter referenced above whether it was prepared as a formal Opinion Letter under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3 (and/or any other authority) or as an informal letter if prepared under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 (and/or any other authority).
Please have your response conform to the OIP administrative rules.
A few hours later he received the following response:
Subject: Re Request for Ag Opinion letter
From: “Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov”
To: “Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]
Dear Mr. Donofrio:
No formal (emphasis added) attorney general opinion was generated relating to the July 27, 2009 public statement made by Chiyome L. Fukino, M.D. Any other legal advice rendered to our clients is privileged communication. We have nothing to release based on your request.
Very truly yours,
Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii
With all due respect to Ms Nagamine, this response is disingenuous in the extreme. First, Mr. Donofrio asked for all formal and informal communications. Under the law, the state has to release this information once any part of the resulting decisions are publically released, which happened on July 27th with Director Fukino’s Press Release, and again on July 29th When Janice Okubo informed Mr. Riggs that the Attorney General approved the statement. Second, Ms Nagamine’s response states that the informal communications are attorney client privilege, where none exists.
According to OIP Opinion letter 91-23, the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion made public by the agency or client (The Department of Health) the accompanying record of that opinion must be made public.
A client cannot voluntarily and selectively disclose those portions of a communication between the client and the client’s attorney without forfeiting the right to keep other portions of the communication on the same subject matter privileged.
The privilege may be said to be waived when the client relinquishes its protection. The waiver of this privilege follows as a consequence from any conduct by the client that would make it unfair for the client thereafter to assert the privilege. See generally, Marcus, The Perils of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84 Mich. L. Rev. 1065 (1986)
Similarly, under Rule 510 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, the holder of a privilege waives it if the privilege holder consents to the disclosure of “any significant part of the privileged matter.”
The response of Ms Nagamine is very clearly not addressing the informal communications between Director Fukino and the Attorney General. By law, the public has the right to see any communications between these two parties once the client, in this case the Department of Health, publically releases the conclusions reached through those communications.
Donofrio is currently filing an appeal with the OIP, and the Judiciary as well. Because of the nature of the law involved, Donofrio will get that judicial review in an expedited manner.
The State of Hawaii will soon be forced to reveal the information it used to declare Barack Obama a Natural Born citizen. This will be very interesting, considering Obama’s Father was a British Citizen. therefore Barack Obama Jr is also a British Citizen, and was at birth by the very nature of his parentage.
Barack Obama, by legal definitions going back to the 1600’s is not, was not, and never has been a Natural Born Citizen. It does not matter where Barack Obama was born; he was a dual American/British/Kenyan citizen. He could have been born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. itself, and it would not matter. The basic fact of Barack Obama’s parentage remains the same. A Dual Citizen cannot ever be a Natural Born Citizen.
There is absolutely no doubt.
There is an Usurper in the White House, and his name is Barack Obama. He and those who aided him in this usurpation, including the DNC are guilty of Treason to the United States. Every law that has been passed, every treaty signed, every order issued to the military has zero legal weight.
This leads to a singularly terrifying reality that must be dealt with. The United States does not have a constitutional government.
This is the reason the Democrats in Congress are pushing things through as fast as they possibly can, without reading and in the case of the Senate even writing the legislation they are voting on. Once it becomes public knowledge what the Democrats and the DNC have done in their fraud upon America with Barack Obama, they will not be able to get anything done. Rightly so.
This is a scandal and cover-up 100 times the size of Watergate. This time, it won’t be just a President resigning in disgrace, it will also be the DNC Leadership who will be under the criminal investigation microscope for the cover-up, and it is a scrutiny they cannot withstand.
This is the reason Barack Obama is doing everything he can to keep people focused on the irrelevant issue of his birth certificate. He would rather people be thinking about where he was born rather than the citizenship that was conferred upon him by his British father.
The smoke and mirrors have cleared. This is no longer a partisan issue, partisan issues are reserved for constitutional governments, which we do not have. There is only those who understand the peril we are in, and those who do not, and we are all Americans.
Now, what are we going to do about it?
For more info: Hawaii Department of Health press release, Natural Born Citizen, Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4, Hawaiian Office of Information Practices, OIP Opinion letter 91-23
For more info: Hawaii Department of Health press release, Natural Born Citizen, Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4, Hawaiian Office of Information Practices, OIP Opinion letter 91-23
Monday, November 23, 2009
The former British police officer who wants to bring down Barack Obama
Conspiracist prominent in movement claiming president is an imposter
Neil Sankey has spent his life investigating organised crimes. As a former British police officer with almost 20 years experience, he was seconded to elite units of Scotland Yard through most of the 1970s and now runs his own private detective agency in California.
Over the years he has been involved in some big investigations. As part of the Special Branch and Bomb Squad he monitored British leftwing groups and the IRA, and in America his clients have included several big car companies.
But never has he handled anything quite as monumental as the investigation that is absorbing his energies today.
Sankey is pursuing what he believes to be fraud on a gigantic scale — a conspiracy, no less, to infiltrate and destroy the free world by putting a foreign imposter into the White House.
Sankey is a member of the fringe alliance known widely as the Birthers (he dislikes the expression, considering it pejorative). Together with other activists, he seeks to prove that Barack Obama is not a true American and is therefore ineligible to be president.
Over the past year Sankey has been at the centre of some of the most aggressive efforts by the Birthers to unseat the president. At the end of last year he tried to block Obama’s inauguration by contacting all 538 electoral college representatives who formally elect the president. More recently, he has carried out his own probe into Obama’s personal identification history which has revealed, he believes, a suspicious multiplicity of social security numbers.
Sankey says his fascination began with the realisation “that this man wasn’t what he said he was. He wasn’t an ordinary Democrat — he was far more extreme than that.” So about a year ago he began reading blogs and websites that claimed to expose Obama’s foreign roots, his spurious Hawaiian birth certificate and the $2m White House cover-up that has prevented the public finding out about the plot.
His travels put him in touch with Orly Taitz, one of the most energetic and flamboyant of the Birther leaders. Of Moldovan extraction, she emigrated via Israel to California where she works as a dentist and lawyer. She has filed numerous legal suits around the country on behalf of serving US military personnel attempting to prevent their deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan on the grounds that they should not be taking orders from an illegally serving commander-in-chief.
Sankey’s journey from having worked in some of the most elite police units in Britain to taking part in a movement dedicated to the pursuit of a paranoid conspiracy theory may seem bizarre. But he insists it has been a natural progression. He joined the Hampshire force in 1961, and was seconded as a detective sergeant to Scotland Yard where he developed a specialism tracking leftwing political groups and the IRA.
“We created an operation into what we called revolutionary criminality — monitoring leftwing bookshops and extremist literature, following the leftist fringe and the Marxist links of the IRA.”
In 1980 he moved to California, set up his agency, and became a naturalised American in 1985.
Sankey contends that his police experience in England now informs his fight against Obama. “It’s quite obvious to me — America is heading towards a socialised state just as has happened in Europe. Socialised medicine, everyone on the dole, and when everything collapses you tip the scales into Marxism.”
He also believes his training in Scotland Yard is now reaping benefits for the Birthers. The same techniques he used to analyse the IRA’s associations he is now applying to Obama. Most recently, he carried out an exhaustive search of databases that he claims threw up 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president — but he believes it raises further doubts that need investigating.
Taitz says Sankey’s UK police expertise has been invaluable. “He has had superb training. I have the greatest respect for Scotland Yard.”
The Birther movement is not a unique phenomenon within US politics. Bill Clinton was accused by conspiracy theorists of having murdered his friend and White House legal adviser Vince Foster; George Bush had to contend with the Truthers who believe he was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.
But the Birthers are unlike previous movements in that they are focused on who Obama is rather than what he does.
“There is no other president who has had his citizenship questioned in this way,” says Patricia Turner, an expert in folklore at the University of California, Davis. Turner says that the popular Birther theories that Obama has used fake Hawaiian documents to disguise the fact he was born in Kenya or Indonesia are retellings of an old story. “This is just a proxy for old-fashioned racism. They are driven by hostility towards anything they see as foreign or exotic.”
Although the Birthers are on the fringe of American politics, they are part of a wider surge of rightwing anger towards Obama’s perceived socialist policies that is sweeping the country.
As such they can command considerable support. An internet petition demanding an official inquiry into Obama’s origins has been signed by almost 500,000; critics say the number is inflated by multiple clicks.
Like any virulent conspiracy theory, that of Obama’s birth has proved immune to the intervention of fact. When Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii was digitally scanned for all to see, it was denounced as a forgery. The birth notices printed by two Hawaii newspapers announcing his birth in August 1961 were similarly dismissed.
Dozens of legal actions have been brought before the courts by Taitz and other Birther leaders, and so far every one has been thrown out. Last month a federal judge dismissed Taitz’s lawsuit seeking to challenge the chain of military command up to Obama as commander-in-chief. In a devastating ruling, the judge accused Taitz of trying to “emasculate the military” in a way that would “leave this country defenceless”.
None of these setbacks have dissuaded Sankey. He says accusations of racism are smears that he has come to expect. “The objection is not Obama’s colour but his politics. I like him as a person, I just wish he was genuine.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)