The Battle is Far from Over for the Fraud B. Hussein Obama
While a drug-hungover b. hussein hobama holds his Nancy Reagan/Hillary Clinton bashing press conference while masquerading in front of a makeshift pulpit sign entitled “office of the president-elect” (LMAO WTF is that? Never heard of that “office” before! what an egomaniac poser! And WTF is he using a .gov address for his “change.gov” site!? lmao this guy has some “audacity” aka nerve!) But I digress. While he is doing that, the Supreme Court and Democrat lawyer Philip Berg were also getting some things done. We’ll see if hobama successfully worked his magical document creating powers during his recent visit to hawaii to “check on his (now deceased, previously thrown under the bus) grandmother.” Looks like the Supreme Court needs to see obama’s authentic birth certificate.
Post by Joan Swirsky, Nov 7, 2008.
If The Supreme Court Decides…?
At this point, [Ed: Bush appointed LIBERAL] Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.
If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.
“I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. “They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power – even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.”
Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.
Atlas Shrugs has this to say:
This is interesting. Souter tells Obama to produce the vault copy by December 1, 2008. I believe the messiah will defy the Justices.
Who will force the issue? Who wants to open up that pandora’s box? Imagine if there is something on that birth certificate that disqualifies Obama from the office of the President. What are you going to do? Start a civil war? There will be blood in the streets you try to enforce the rule of law. This should have happened before the election. Obambi knows it too.
Civil war or not, it needs to happen. Stubborn thing, this RULE OF LAW.
UPDATE: The little bitch apparently quasi apologized for his widow First Lady-bashing.
UPDATE FROM ATLAS:
UPDATE: Let me clarify, Obama does NOT HAVE TO RELEASE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, though he should.
He must respond and considering the fact he was elected …..
Here is the SCOTUS website showing what is on SCOTUS’s docket:
Robert’s translation of what SCOTUS tells us on their webpage as far as Berg’s case:
Berg filed a lawsuit in the Third Circuit, which means in a federal court somewhere in PA or NJ (seeking to require Obama to disclose the birth certificate). The Third Circuit denied that suit (on the basis that Berg doesn’t have standing). Berg applied to SCOTUS for a writ of cert — this just asks SCOTUS to take a look at the merits of the case that got dismissed in the lower court. SCOTUS gives Obama until Dec. 3 to respond to the application for a writ of cert. While SCOTUS is deciding whether to grant the writ and to then take a look at the merits (i.e., whether to decide if Obama has to produce the birth certificate), Berg files an application for an injunction — I assume an injunction to delay the election until Obama shows the birth certificate. That application is denied on Nov. 3 and the election continues. SCOTUS has not yet decided whether to grant the writ or not. By Dec. 3, Obama may or may not respond to the application for a writ of cert.
In the Berg case, it is only after SCOTUS grants the writ of cert that SCOTUS will take up the issue of whether Obama has to produce the birth certificate. That’s the thing Berg is asking for, and right now that’s not even being considered by SCOTUS, they’re still on the issue of whether to take the case or not.
RELEASE THE VAULT!
UPDATE: ANOTHER ANGLE, from AtlasShrugs
BIRTH CERTIFICATE VAULT COPY ALERT
This is like a Grisham novel. A tangential but delicious point — it may very well be in Clarence Thomas’s hands. When the Mansourian plant was asked on Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Political Forum, who he would not have nominated for Supreme Court Justice, Obama said “Clarence Thomas”. He then went on to denigrate Thomas’s intellect (“not a strong enough legal thinker or intellect”). The plant is not fit to wipe Thomas’s boots. I hope the plant is sweating. Bwahhaahahahahahaha. BTW, I found Obama’s racism against Thomas (he calls everyone against him a racist so why can’t I do the same?) appalling. John Bolton, the intellectual’s intellectual, has called Clarence Thomas “an outstanding Supreme Court Justice”.
SCOTUS CLERK’S OFFICE CONTINUED SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN STAY APPLICATION FOR 08 ELECTION – YOUR HELP
Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, “That wasn’t a disposition so I didn’t have to give you any notice.” Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn’t a proper disposition I wasn’t entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by “appropriately speedy means”. Sabotage.
This is truly unprecedented, my friends.
3. Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn’t worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.
Bickell also requested that people stop calling him, and I told him that these people are just citizens, I don’t know who they are, and I can’t command them to do anything but that they are watching the Supreme Court’s actions and they want to see that Justice is done in this case, and that Justice pertains not just to the substantive case but to the procedural aspects as well under the Supreme Court Rules which have not been followed.
I don’t think calling Mr. Bickell will do anymore good, although it certainly did influence him to get in touch with me. So Im asking people to concentrate on sending letters to the attention of Justice Clarence Thomas and the other Supreme Court Justices US Supreme Court instead of making phone calls. The phone calls were very helpful and served to alert Mr. Bickell and other interested parties at the US Supreme Court that the public is very interested in this case.
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
——————————–
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
UPDATE 2: Yet ANOTHER Angle?
www.nohussein.org
Molotov Mitchell interviews Andy Martin about his case to obtain Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii. During the interview, Martin explained some of the bizarre details he’s come across in his investigation, things that have led him to believe that President-Elect Barack Obama’s father may not be Barack Obama, Sr.
Because of his recent election, Martin argues that Obama’s sealed records have by default become historical documents and a matter of public record.
“Obama’s citizenship has been questioned in 8 courts across 8 states. If a formal investigation into Obama’s citizenship does not occur at this point, then our Constitution is in jeopardy,” Molotov recently wrote in a newsletter. “And Americans should be aware that that may very well be Obama’s goal.”
2 Responses to “The Battle is Far from Over for the Fraud B. Hussein Obama”
Loading...
Re: “Required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.”
This all stems from Berg. Do we have any confirmation? Did any other body say that Souter’s law clerk said that Obama has to produce his birth certificate? Even the response to the Writ has been argued by critics. They say that the response only requires Obama lawyers to file a motion to dismiss the request for the Writ.
It is unlikely that Souter or Souter’s clerk asked for the actual birth certificate. If they asked for anything at all, most likely all that they asked for was proof that he was born in Hawaii, and that could be satisfied with the certification of live birth. The certification of live birth is proof that a Hawaii birth certificate exists in the files. It shows that there IS a birth certificate much the same way that a bankbook used to show that we had money in the bank. A court in Virginia has now accepted the certification as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.
IF Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.
The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. They are thus confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.
The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” – and concluded that the stuff was absurd.
In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:
“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html
In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.
Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)
Quotes:
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.
However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”
Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”
smrstrauss - November 8, 2008 at 9:22 am
That One is going to plead the 5th so he doesn’t incriminate himself.
ahrcanum - November 12, 2008 at 11:53 am