Submitted by: Peter Bulfinch
IS OBAMA FINALLY GOING TO FACE THE COURTS?
Anthony Martin, Conservative Examiner
As an original foot-soldier in 'the Reagan Revolution' that led to the election of Ronald Reagan, Anthony G. Martin is no stranger to politics, particularly in the state of his birth, South Carolina.
Excerpted from http://www.examiner.com/article/sources-say-smackdown-of-obama-by-supreme-court-may-be-inevitable
9th Circuit Court to hear Obama’s eligibility questions
March 31, 2011 By Bob Unruh
Â© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Â© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Arguments in a lawsuit on Barack Obama’s eligibility that has been percolating through the federal court system in California since the 2008 election will be heard at the appellate level in just a few weeks.
Officials with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today notified attorneys representing several dozen individuals members of the military, members of state government and even a candidate for president that oral arguments will be held May 2.
“I can’t believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case,” wrote Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama.
Two Obama Eligibility Cases Filed By Two Presidential Candidates
at U.S. Supreme Court: One Set for Conference on April 20th
BACKGROUND: WASHINGTON D.C. - POTUS Write-In Candidate Montgomery Blair Sibley today(3/28/12) filed his Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. That Petition presents the Supreme Court with record evidence that: (i) Barack Hussein Obama, II, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, §1 of the Constitution and thus is ineligible to be President and (ii) that the “Certificates of Live Birth” released by Mr. Obama are in fact forgeries. Additionally, Sibley is filing a Motion to Expedite Consideration of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. By these documents, Sibley is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite the resolution of his Quo Warranto lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court before the Honorable John D. Bates. Significantly, though eighty-five (85) days have passed since Sibley’s filing of the lawsuit on January 3, 2012, Judge Bates has refused to rule upon any of the pending matters in that suit.
Excerpted from http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/04/two-obama-eligibility-cases-at.html
Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards “Image” As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility
DAMAGE CONTROL: A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency.
By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN
NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.
Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
Maurio Apuzzo argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements. Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.
Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”
According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.
Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 10, 2012 We argued that Mr. Obama has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that he has not presented any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing who he is and that he was born in the United States. We also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
Obama’s attorney made a motion to dismiss the Objection in its entirety. She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot. We argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. We argued that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot. Judge Masin denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
Excerpted from http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/04/18/obama-lawyer-admits-in-court-birth-certificate-on-white-house-website-is-a-forgery/ The account of the trial can be read at: http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/11/nj-ballot-access-challenge-hearing-update/
State Supreme Court Justice Declares “Serious Questions” About Obama’s Birth Certificate — Now Tell EVERY Secretary of State AND Attorney General to REMOVE Obama From their Ballot: https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_eligibility/?a=2565
ALERT: A Supreme Court Justice in Alabama has declared that, thanks to recent investigations into Barack Hussein Obama’s alleged Constitutional ineligibility to be President of the United States, a filing that seeks to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before he would be allowed on the presidential ballot in November has raised “serious questions” about Obama’s “birth certificate” — and the possibility that it’s a FORGERY.
Excerpted from http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2012/04/obama-birth-certificate-raises-questions-says-court-justice/
Written on April 16, 2012 at 12:17 pm by Tim Brown
t appears the web is a buzz with information concerning the New Jersey court contest in regards to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on the state’s ballot. At the center of the controversy now is the fact that Barack Obama’s own lawyer has apparently conceded the fact that the document is a forgery.
According to TeaPartyTribune.com, attorney Alexandra Hill, of the Newark-based law firm Genova, Burn and Giantomasi, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. She concluded her analysis of the online birth certificate arguing that it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
Excerpted from http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/04/barack-obamas-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-forged/
Supreme Court questions Obama Medicaid rules Mar 28, 2012
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court sharply questioned the government's lawyer Wednesday on whether the Medicaid expansion in President Obama's health care law carries a threat to states that should render it unconstitutional.
While all four liberal justices defended the expansion as a good deal for the states, since it is at least 90% federally funded, several conservatives implied the potential for states to lose all Medicaid funds if they don't participate could represent coercion.
It was not clear, however, that there was enough conviction among the five conservatives for them to support the claim of 26 states that the law's Medicaid expansion should be thrown out. None of the lower courts that dealt with the challenges to the law said it should.
The one-hour session on Medicaid was the last part of the court's historic three-day, six-hour hearing on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which now teeters on the brink of being declared unconstitutional because of its mandate that most Americans buy insurance.
Excerpted from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/supreme-court-ponders-obama-medicaid-rules/1#.T7FQ4MXch0M
PA Attorney Philip J. Berg Continues Fight On Obama Eligibility April 11, 2012
Barack Hussein Obama, using eight different names, has failed to meet eligibility requirements for the office of U.S. President according to a 19 point challenge alleging he was born in Kenya to a Kenyan citizen and a teenage mother not old enough to convey U.S. citizenship. Democrat Attorney Philip J. Berg, who filed his challenge to the nomination petition with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth on February 23, doubts in Argument 13 that “Obama ever held Natural Born Citizenship status.”
Centering on the NBC clause, Article II, Sect. 1, Clause 5, the eligibility challenge states that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack Hussein Soetoro, is “not a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the U.S, Constitution. Furthermore, Obama was “born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, (and) at the time of his birth his mother was only 18 years old and not old enough to confer U.S. NBC status to him.”
The native born PA attorney is bringing transparency to the Obama eligibility problem for which media pundits and liberal politicians have ridiculed birthers for even bringing up. Berg’s argumentation point 3 says (BHO) was “born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province,’ to a father who was a Kenyan citizen, and to a mother “not old enough and did not reside in the U.S. long enough to register the Candidate’s birth in Hawaii as a NBC.” Berg cites five different case law applications here and further says the law applied to overseas births must be in effect at the time of the birth in question. He cites Marquez-Marques aka Moreno v. Gonzales. 455F.3rd 548 (5th Circuit 2006) and the Runnett v. Shultz 901 F.2d 782,783 (9th Cir. 1990) to further support his challenge.
The eight different names cited are Barack Hussein Obama; Barack Hussein Soetoro; Barack H. Obama; Barack Hussein Soetoro; Barry H. Obama; Barry H. Soetoro; Barry Hussein Obama; Barry Hussein Soetoro.
Excerpted from https://usjf.net/2012/04/pa-attorney-philip-j-berg-continues-fight-on-obama-eligibility/
The matter of the president’s eligibility for the office which he holds and to appear on election ballots has been filed in courts before, but always with the same result: denial of a hearing. Until now. Not only has Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi agreed to hear the Georgia state ballot eligibility case, but he has denied Obama’s request (via his attorney) to quash the subpoena for him to appear and produce all relevant documents.
The hearing began at 9:00 a.m. ET on Thursday, January 26, 2012 and is being streamed live by at least three different websites, which will be providing “gavel to gavel” coverage. Coverage may be viewed on the websites of Article II Super PAC, Birther Summit and Art2SuperPAC.
Early reports were that President Obama was going to refuse to obey a subpoena to be present will all requested documents and that his attorney Michael Jablonski. Such action could lead to him being found in contempt of court.
By the time the hearing began, it was clear the president would not be in attendance. After the judge refused to quash the subpoena demanding Obama appear at the hearing, Obama, through his attorney, sought relief from Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp the evening before the scheduled hearing, in order to bypass the judge’s ruling and “take the trial away from the judge.”
Excerpted from http://constitutionclub.org/2012/01/26/obama-on-trial-ballot-eligibility-trial-in-georgia-streamed-live/
Judge Michael Malihi has ruled on the matter of President Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot in Georgia. His ruling will be forwarded to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will then determine if Obama may be on the ballot. It is presumed he will decide Obama can be.
In the ruling, the judge stated that the plaintiffs presented “expert witnesses” but did not sufficiently establish their expert status. Therefore he could not deem them or their testimony as such.
He went on to acknowledge that president Obama was born to one American citizen parent and one non-American parent. He also acknowledged the precedent established by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Minor v Happersett in regards to the definition of a natural born citizen (born of two American citizen parents).
Then things got interesting. He then referred to the next section of the SCOTUS ruling. In the matter of Minor v Happersett, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of citizenship, as part of ruling in the matter as to whether a woman had the right to vote simply by merit of being an American citizen. In this ruling, they noted that she was natural born because she was born of two American citizen parents.
The Supreme Court went on to state that there was some debate as to whether those born on American soil but not of two American citizen parents were citizens simply because they were born on American soil. Note it was not a debate about being natural born, but of simple citizenship. The court noted that such a decision at that time had not been determined and they would not be doing so because it was not relevant to the case at hand.
In Judge Malihi’s ruling about the ballot eligibility case, he stated that because he interpreted that statement from the Supreme Court to mean children born on American soil to one American citizen parent might or could be ‘natural born’ citizens (because the SCOTUS did not say otherwise), it was his belief they were. Ergo Obama was natural born and eligible.
“Might” does not equate “does” any more in legal terms than “may” equates “shall”. In reviewing the judge’s logic, it seems that the case should have been ruled as some type of a draw, rather than in favor of one over the other. If the evidence does not say Obama is not eligible and the law does not say he is, it has not been proved either way.
The only chance the plaintiffs have now is if Kemp recognizes this ‘interpretation’ as flawed and decides it does not mean Obama meets the natural born requirement. The odds of that happening, however, are slim to none.
Other ballot eligibility challenges are pending in other states and both sides of the debate will most certainly be taking note of this case and ruling.
UPDATE: Attorney Orly Taitz has weighed in with her commentary on and legal issues with the ruling here.
In the course of investigating the birth certificate, the cold case posse checked the national archives for records of all incoming international flights to prove one way or another whether Obama’s mother was on any of them, as some have claimed Obama was born outside the United States and then was brought to the U.S.after the fact. There are some prominent Kenyans who have claimed the president was actually born in Kenya and that it is well known there.
What the cold case posse discovered was that the national archive records for international inbound flights for the entire week around President Obama’s birth are missing.
Fake Selective Service Card
A video presentation was shown regarding the investigation into Obama’s selective service card. It was shown in the presentation that the card released by Obama is fake.
It was announced that a full investigation needs to be launched. WND quoted Sheriff Joe’s lead investigator Mike Zullo from the press conference summarizing the findings:
“Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born inHawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted,” Zullo said.
“In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States.”
It will be interesting to see if a full investigation will be launched and what, if anything, will come of this new information. There are currently several ballot eligibility cases pending against President Obama across the country, so it stands to reason that this information may be used by the plaintiffs. It will also be interesting to see if any new challenges pop up.