World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity Ball…
World Net Daily White House Correspondent Les Kinsolving recently had the chance to ask Obama’s Press Secretary Gibbs a question about the eligibility issue and he fumbled at the golden goal.
Whether they know it or not, WND is causing massive distraction by feeding the birth certificate smokescreen more and more fire while consistently failing to concentrate national focus on the core legal issue - Obama admits to being a British citizen at birth and therefore could not have been a “natural born citizen” of the United States as is required by the Constitution.
Phil at Right Side of Life has the most in depth coverage and actual video footage of the WND-White House Experience.
Fox News and the London Times also covered the eligibility issue and Phil has all of that at the link above.
I am very concerned that the amount of serious media attention the birth certificate issue is currently generating is NOT due to some mass awakening of citizens but rather a calculated device put in place by the powers that be as a set up for crushing the eligibility movement once and for all.
One of these days the Obama administration might serve up for your culinary consumption the most perfect long form birth certificate you could ever imagine. Hawaii officials will vouch for its authenticity under oath if need be. And numerous forensic experts will substantiate its veracity.
Then the POTUS eligibility movement is going to look like a vast nutjob right wing conspiracy.
And the ineligible one will be so much stronger and more powerful for it.
The BC thing is a side dish, not the main course. Any discussion of the BC issue should be subordinate to the dual nationality issue.
The false BC theory is – without a doubt - a conspiracy theory of epic proportions. Nobody can deny that it’s a textbook conspiracy theory. Regardless of whether he has a genuine long form BC saying he was born in Hawaii, the concept that the COLB is a forgery would certainly concern a vast conspiracy to defraud the American people. Conspiracies do exist, but they have a very bad reputation and the media can spin them as kookery with ease.
The dual nationality issue is NOT a conspiracy theory. It’s a genuine legal question. Obama admits he was a dual citizen at birth. Eligibility advocates have simply questioned whether that makes him ineligible to be President under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
BC = Conspiracy theory
DUAL NATIONALITY ADMISSION = legal question
Now doesn’t it make sense that they would rather focus ridicule on the conspiracy theory by allowing broad discussion of it rather than face a genuine legal question to which the great body of law and precedent stands to threaten their power grip?
But you just keep believing in false legal prophets. Go on. See where it gets you America.
Let me make this perfectly clear – below is the question that must be asked of White House Press Secretary Gibbs should anyone ever have the chance again. It’s been crafted with razor sharp precision so that slippery tongued vixens can’t slither out of the truth nexus without exposing themselves to even the most sleepy of audiences.
Make this question your mantra. Don’t be distracted from it.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ASK GIBBS NEXT TIME, WND:
During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?
June 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Leo:
The birth certificate issue is certainly a distraction. The natural born citizen issue does not give Obama nor anyone else any wiggle room. Thanks for not letting this go!
June 23, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Leo,
You have a TYPO.
You use “national” in place of “nationality” … It is in this sentence, “The BC thing is a side dish, not the main course. Any discussion of the BC issue should be subordinate to the dual national issue.”
Later in this Excellent article you do use “nationality”.
P.S. I fully agree with what you state here, and have felt the same for some time … because of other remarks you have made, repeatedly.
Sincerely,
Robare
[Ed. Thanks, I've edited it.]
June 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Re: “The dual nationality issue is NOT a conspiracy theory. It’s a genuine legal question. Obama admits he was a dual citizen at birth. Eligibility advocates have simply questioned whether that makes him ineligible to be President under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution.”
The dual nationality issue is just plain silly. It relies on the mythology that what a foreign country does affects the US law.
[Ed. You are wrong on multiple counts. It's US law which guides us here. US law requires the President to be a "natural born citizen". If a person is born as a citizen or a foreign country, admits as much and cites that foreign country's law himself at his own web site as controlling his birth status while that very same person is a Constitutional lawyer who attended Harvard Law and who taught law as a distinguished professor then perhaps you should consider the issue is more complex than you have erroneously suggested. Obama's web site states that his birth status was "governed" (which is the actual term used at his web site) by Great Britain. Perhaps you might be so humble as to acknowledge that Obama knows a hell of alot more about Constitutional law than you do.
Notice that Obama is not claiming what you claim at his web site. Obama states unequivocally that his birth status was Governed by Great Britain. He doesn't say it was governed by the USA. Why don't you go ask him to change the language and explain to Obama that he doesn't understand the law. You are playing word games but the ruse doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The way you've worded your reply is no different than a circular accusation, it's the same concept as asking somebody if they still beat their wife. No answer will suffice.
The proper way to analyze your remark is to say that if the granting of citizen status by a foreign country were arbitrary, ie North Korea granted citizenship to Jeb Bush in order to thwart him from running for President - that would never fly, but the plain truth is Obama's father was never a US citizen and so while that wouldn't stop Obama from gaining US citizenship, it would certainly prevent him from being President since he can never be a natural born citizen according to my best understanding of Constitutional law, the framers intent and precedent of past Presidents.
I admit there are differing opinions but while the issue has never been definitively decided by SCOTUS, it was in fact SCOTUS in the Minor case who stated that as to people in Obama's shoes - those born in the US of non-citizen parents - there are doubts as to whether such persons are natural born citizens.
Also note that the argument you suggest was never brought up in the SCOTUS case Minor vs Happersett - again, the most on point dicta in SCOTUS history which states unequivocally that there are "doubts" as to whether a person born in the US whose parents weren't citizens could be considered nbc.
Furthermore, the issue is far from silly since the only directly on point language we have from SCOTUS on this issue is the Minor case where they themselves raised these doubts. If it's silly then blame SCOTUS, they could have said this was silly but instead they agreed that it's serious enough to raise doubts. And also note that they didn't need to decide the nbc issue for that particular case, but they thought it was important enough to mention these doubts regardless.
Think about that before you respond.
I will also warn you that I do not find your comment to be intellectually honest. Feel free to reply, but drop the sarcasm and just state your case. There's nothing silly about this. I've printed your comment in its entirety. But if you use condescending language again, you will not be extended further courtesy.]
Say that Mexico were to grant all children born in the areas of the USA that were once Mexico citizenship in Mexico. That makes them all dual nationals.
[Ed. As stated above, various scenarios as you have suggested do not have the same legal effect as the three ages old paths to citizenship:
JUS SOLI - by the soil
JUS SANGUINIS - by the blood
NATIONALIZATION - by law
These are the paths discussed in the Dept. of State Foreign Affairs Manual. They are commonly accepted universal paths to citizenship having been considered and respected through the ages. They are not wild hypothetical possibilities. Obama's father was never a US citizen. There is nothing hypothetical about that. ]
Does Mexico passing a law make these children less loyal than a child whom Mexico did not claim as a Mexican? No. Does it mean that the children want to be Mexicans? No. Does it affect their citizenship under US law? No, if they were born in the USA, nothing any other government can do can take that away.
But, can the fact that a foreign country grants dual nationality affect the “Natural Born” status? No way. That would still mean that a foreign country could meddle in the USA and make children who would normaly have been eligible no longer eligible.
It is a well-established practice where dual nationality is concerned, that the US ignores the foreign law and deals with our citizens in every way as citizens.
[Ed. Not true. In the Foreign Affairs manual it clearly states that dual nationality causes problems for the US Government:
In fact, when the British took nationalized US citizens, whom they considered to be still be British subjects, and forced them to work on their ships, we went to war in 1812.
[Ed. Completely irrelevant analogy. Those people were US citizens who were kidnapped. Please also note that nationalized citizens cannot be President hence the analogy not being relevant. But also take note again of the language in Section C above
]
But, what if the US citizen had a foreign father and the dual nationality is the result of his father’s citizenship, plus the fact that the father was not a US citizen? If, as the Supreme Court has ruled in the Wong case, a US Natural Born citizen is someone who is born in the USA, then the fact that his father was not a citizen PLUS the dual nationality does not change that at all.
[Ed. You've completely misquoted the holding in the SCOTUS case of Wog Kim Ark. The Wong Kim Ark case does NOT say that a US Natural Born Citizen is someone born in the USA. Nowhere in the case does it say that. You are absolutely mistaken without question. The Wong Kim Ark case says that a person born in the US is a "citizen" - and only if that person is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Furthermore, the relevance of Wong Kim Ark can also be further reduced since the court stated that a determining factor was whether the parents were permanently domiciled in the US. Obama's father was not permamanently domiciled in the US so Wong Kim Ark shouldn't even be controlling as to this fact pattern. This is a point which needs to be remembered and brought up again and again. It is certainly a neglected fact of that holding and one which Obama supporters have failed to discuss and acknowledge.
In any case, the holding does not say such a person is a natural born citizen for purposes of Article 1 Section 2 Clause 5. From now on, if you choose to post on this blog, I will request that when you refer to a SCOTUS case, you include direct quotes from that case and citations. There is no quote or citation in the Wong case as you have suggested. Nada.]
June 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Mr. Donofrio,
When you said, “I am very concerned that the amount of serious media attention the birth certificate issue is currently generating is NOT due to some mass awakening of citizens but rather a calculated device put in place by the powers that be as a set up for crushing the eligibility movement once and for all,” you hit the nail on the head. When I first heard about the billboard campaign, this is exactly what I thought. Of course, you had already hinted at this possibility in the past.
Why is there not one single representative of the people that is attacking this issue? My own federal representative fed me a steaming pile when I personally asked him about it. People who laud the supporters of HR 1503 as heroes are fools. These men are no heroes. Heroes would have objected on the House floor during the confirmation process. Heroes would be speaking out about the multiple citizenship issue in public, demanding justice. Heroes would defend the constitution regardless of whether their constituents asked them to do it. Heroes would put their duty before personal gain. Instead, there is not one single officer in our government doing his duty. Not one.
Picture the officer in our current government with whom you agree the most. The one that shares all your ideals and represents your opinions on all the issues. The one that you used to respect, and made you wish there were more people like him. That government official has broken his oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and continues to do so. How does that make you feel? First and foremost, it makes me want to puke.
Lt. Col. David A. Earl-Graef said in his open letter to you, “… who among them are willing to be the first, if any, to rise to [this great land's] defense when it is still not clear that they should profit themselves by it.” This “great land” may never know the answer. It disgusts me that my children walk on this “great land.” I’ll be trying to find them a home where some semblance of sanity remains. This task may be impossible.
JJ
[Ed. I am sick of puking. You have no idea how it breaks my heart to know that active military men are willing to face court martial over this issue while every single member of Congress cowers in their office including Ron Paul. They appear to be cowards who have sold their souls and the Constitution. For what? Perhaps some are just not aware of the true issue. I really do not like to judge people unfairly. But if they are not aware then they are derelict of duty. Either way, cowardice or dereliction...they do not have my respect. ]
June 23, 2009 at 10:51 AM
This what I wrote and emailed to Joseph Farah right after the question to Mr. Gibbs regarding the birth certificate.
” Hello Mr. Farah,
————————————————————————————
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
————————————————————————————
BORN IN U.S. BY AMERICAN CITIZEN PARENTS
————————————————————————————
New Bumper Sticker !!! Billboard !!! (I hope the typed graphic shows up properly in your email.)
Don’t forget, as Attorney Leo Donofrio warned, the birth certificate may be a distraction as his father was a British subject and native of Kenya (a British colony then) at the time of Barack Obama’s birth.
Barack Obama admits his father was not an American citizen on his own website, fightthesmears.com.
Barack Obama also claims he is a ‘native citizen’ on this website. ‘NATIVE BORN’ is only part of ‘NATURAL BORN’.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
He has no claim of being a ‘natural born citizen’ on his website as this is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. (so much for a constitutional scholar or maybe a [puposeful] constitutional misrepresentation)
It is possible that he is native born in Hawaii or has a foreign born birth registration in Hawaii.
“Permit me to hint……………..” as John Jay warned George Washington about foreigners to the office of president, permit me to hint, that if it may be possible for this administration to reveal such a birth document and such record is of truth to the United States Constitution requirement for president, let us not allow into memories past, that this president was born as a foreign subject at birth.
The issue may go completely away if it is revealed (by chance) Mr. Obama actually was born in Hawaii and then the ‘American Citizen Parents’ issue may be really hard to convey to the world as the tin foil hats would be solidly clad to our heads. ”
I received no response from Mr. Farah.
June 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Attorney Donofrino:
From all of my reading from your Blogs on Natural Born Citizen and Obama, I believe that Gerald Walpin (fired Inspector General) is the ideal ‘Interested Party’ with the rights to file a Quo Warranto against Pres. Obama stating he had no right to fire him.
Do you agree? I’ve sent multiple emails to Glenn Beck about your opinnion and for him to research and maybe get Mr. Walpin to file this suit.
I think your involvement would be greatly appreciated by Mr. Walpin as he says he is going to fight his dismissal.
Can you help????????
[Ed. I agree that Mr. Walpin has standing under the Newman case to challenge Obama under Quo warranto by jury trial. Within the next two weeks I plan on posting a legal memo on this issue. I can't promise the date of delivery. But it is on my list.]
June 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Brilliant, and absolutely correct Leo. I ,too, have been trying to inform others that Barry’s admitted British Citizenship AT BIRTH is why he could never have been POTUS eligible. The BC issue, may or may not help to establish weather he is even in this country legally (i.e. as there is no known record of Naturalization) because if indeed born outside the U.S., his mother was too young to convey Citizenship (read, Citizenship and not NBC) to him.
I believe your factual statement (unless Barry lied on his campaign web site) followed by the single question is the perfect material for a letter to ones’ representatives and news organizations.
“During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law? ”
‘Wordy’ letters often times get tossed as they take too long to read and to answer the multiple questions therein. The above is concise and to the heart of the matter.
Bravo!
June 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Leo,
This might be a distinction without a difference but while your question certainly captures the major issue, I would change the order of the argument from:
Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?
To:
Can you please tell the American people how someone who was governed – at – birth by British law possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States?
It seems to me that the phrasing of the former presumes a status of natural born citizen.
Not that it matters as I suspect WND will never again be allowed to ask Gibbs a question.
Thomas
June 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Leo,
I have been trying to get everyone focused on that issue ALONE and forget all the other peripheral sides that every OBOT puts up to confuse and obfuscate the majority of the people all of the time.
We MUST STICK to the ONE QUESTION and the ONE QUESTION ONLY….
We can get strung out trying to put out fires all over the place and focusing on every aspect of several questions that Obama and his team represent, but WE HAVE TO FOCUS SOLELY ON THE ONE QUESTION, for he can’t prove anything otherwise on it and he has made a point of stating it in his Innauguration Address and online and in his books, to anyone and everyone who will listen or see. He was the one who put it out there for all to see and then hoped that he could avoid the obvious by making the statement up front and taking the fire out of it that way, which he has so far, done, very well…..
By the way, in case you didn’t get the message in this post, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!! I just wish that everyone else would see the light about the obvious play that is going on here. We have to strip out everything else that is floating around about Obama, (becasue he loves to confuse and put up so many scenarios that everyone gets mentally tired just trying to keep up), we have to concentrate on the one question….
[Ed. I'd like to see the question I've presented asked a million times on a million different blogs. It's simple and easy to understand and requires an answer since the source comes directly form Obama's web site. Have at it.]
June 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Once again Leo, nice job! Thanks!
June 23, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Leo the COLB is a fake, its a composite of at least 3 other Hawaii COLB’s, with Text in key fields edited in with a different computer program.
The Seal is a from a COLB from one year and the security border from a COLB of a different year.
[Ed. And that is a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, while the image posted at his web site may or may not be an image of a fake - that does not mean the genuine article does not exist.]
This is part of what WND is tring to get across with the Birth citificate issue. I know you are not interested – but the issue is poitically charged, and potentially fatal for the Usurpers hold on power.
[Ed. It's not fatal since the State of Hawaii is not complaining that the COLB is a fake. If Hawaii officials were making accusations you would have a case, but Hawaii is vouchin for the man in many ways. It's not going to happen. What you are hoping for is not going to settle this - at least not in favor of proving he's not eligible. It might settle it in favor of him, but certainly not against him. If you think he's not controlling this entire issue, both sides of it, then I believe you are being naive. That's just my personal opinion. ]
It was just good enough to fool print and TV journalists last year. Trying to get a journalist to change his/her mind about a previous story is amazingly difficult – I know I have tried and when you talk to them you can *hear* their eyes glaze over.
Leo you are correct about all the legal issues, but the resignation of the DC US attorney leaves the decision of whether to pick up a Quo Warrento from Walpin [or other constionaionally legitimate party] in the hands of an Obama appointee. Obama’s team cheats and expecting them to let any legal procedure even get started is naive.
[Ed. The Walpin Quo Warranto possibility does not require acquiescence from the US Attorney or the AG... Walpin should be considered an "interested party" under the SCOTUS holding in Newman and as such he may proceed without the Government's authority.]
Imagine you are playing chess with a guy who moves pieces on the board when its not his turn when your back is turned. Logical legal stategy breaks down when the cheater is ref [justice Dept] and a ruthless man whose only concern is power and making that power permanent.
WND is acting in the political sphere and you restrict yourself to the legal sphere. Since there are many judges who are in effect only politicians in judges apparel, trying to separate politics from the law is not possibly any more. I can prove that statement unfortunately, If you are interested, but its too long for this post.
Leo I Like and admire you more than I can put into words. But politically, the message has to be simple for ordinary people to grasp it.
[Ed. The question WND should ask is very simple. Obama says his birth status was governed by Great Britain... let him explain how he can possible be nbc of the US. Doesn't get much simpler than that.
But the BC conspiracy would have to include a cast of thousands including many officials in Hawaii state Government. That's complicated.]
That is why Obama fears the “Wheres the Birth Cirtificate” Bill board campaign. So much so he got his pal Rachel Madow at MSNBC to try to smear the “birthers” by saying the Holocaust Museam shooter was inspired by the birther campaign. [in fact the guy was some NAZI aethiest psycho nut job]
As for your clever but complex question Leo [underlined in blue on your blog post] I am sure Gibbs would easily deflect it with humour by picking out on or two words and coming out with a cheap debating point.
[Ed. And he will therefore expose his deception by the lack of veracity in his answer. Were Gibbs to address the issue as you say, then the words he uses will testify to the veracity of the speake. We've seen him dust the Kinsolving BC question as you have suggested, now let's see him try the same with the "governed by British law" admission and we shall go from there.]
WND forced him to lie muliple times – thats why they keep going. If they can prove Gibbs is Lying and Publicise it Obama may suffer considerable politcal damage perhaps even enough to have him impeached if the 2010 elections go heavily against the Democrats.
There are more dimensions to the problem than the legal one. Other Folks have to attack the other angles Leo, when we need the pure contitutional legal point of view – we know exactly which honest researcher
to come to
June 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Leo,
I Cringe every time I hear someone bring up this BC issue without the Dual Citizenship issue. The fact is that most people, myself included were taught that Born in the US = NBC, and refuse to believe otherwise. I ask them, “In light of the Framers intent to isolate the office of POTUS and VP from foreign influence, do you really think that they would have considered anchor babies as NBC eligible to be POTUS?” Even when they are not Obama “FANS” they refuse to believe that it is a valid issue. I would say that Obama is Precicely the type of person that the Framers were trying to prevent from holding office. There are websites and Bloggers and attorneys that refuse to even have the Dual Citizen angle talked about. I was banned from Freerepublic for posting about Jindal’s NBC Dual Citizen issue. What is amazing is that people like Phillip Berg, a former state AG and attorney, say things like “Current US Law makes those born in the US NBCs”, which is amazingly dumb statement. Americasright is also a site that will not discuss the issue, yet they praise peple like Ron Paul and Dick Cheney or other conservatives who let WE The People down and did not stop Obama when they had the chance.
If you find a legal road with this fired IG and Quo Warranto would you consider coming on Joyce Kaufman’s show (Ft. Lauderdale) again? It would be a large audiance.
June 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Mr. Donofrio,
That is FAR too intelligent and respectful of a question!
How about this?
“Mr. Gibbs (and Company), now that the RATIONAL World knows the truth, would you prefer a Judge or a Jury Trial?”
June 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Even more potent, Leo, is the fact that he renounced his birth citizenship, whatever it really was, to swear allegiance to the country of Indonesia. After some years in Indonesia with his mother and step father, Lolo Soetoro, Barry Soetoro, still a boy (aka BHO Jr.), entered the USA with his American mother while holding his Indonesian passport. We know this is credible because the right number of years later a foreign student named Barry Soetoro shows up (according to Orly Taitz) on the list of enrolled students at Occidental College in Los Angeles. From immigrant student to Illinois State Senator he morphed back to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr..
He is currently a naturalized American citizen at best or an illegal immigrant at worst. We don’t know which. Worst case scenario, he’s an invader.
With greatest respect to all the important work you continue to do I believe emphasis should be placed on his changing identities and citizenship status after he was born, though Indonesia, then on to the USA and finally POTUS.
Best wishes.
June 23, 2009 at 7:54 PM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:08-CV-02234 (RJL)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ CONSOLIDATED (1) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT;
(2) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR NON-FOIA RELIEF; AND
(3) MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY
Rather than attempt to defend his asserted (but false) entitlement to private passport and
travel records relating to President Barack Obama, Plaintiff Christopher Strunk has responded to
Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #16] by requesting that his entire Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”) case be set aside, at least temporarily, in favor of jury proceedings
regarding the President’s authority to hold his office, with concomitant discovery on a wide
range of issues, apparently to be heard by a three-judge panel under color of 28 U.S.C. § 2284.
Pl.’s Opp’n/Cross-Mot. [Dkt. #19]. None of these requests have merit. As to the underlying
Motion to Dismiss, Strunk concedes the solitary relevant issue by admitting that, in submitting
his FOIA requests for the President’s personal records, he failed to comply with agency privacy
regulations, and therefore has not exhausted his claims for such records. Defendants’ Partial
Motion to Dismiss should therefore be granted. Moreover, Defendants hereby (1) oppose
Strunk’s myriad requests for relief, all of which are meritless and fall well beyond the scope of
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 20 Filed 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 11
[ED. Snipped for length. Please provide a link to the document instead of posting the entire thing. I would appreciate that otherwise the comments get drowned out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention though...]
June 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:08-CV-02234 (RJL)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Defendants.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY
The myriad reasons justifying the entry of a stay of discovery are adequately set forth in
Defendants’ June 8, 2009 consolidated filing [Dkt. #20]. Herewith, Defendants reply in support
of their motion only to raise two matters:
First, Plaintiff appears to concede, in his opposition to the motion [Dkt. #23, #24], that
(1) the only purported justification for the discovery he has attempted to propound is to make
inquiry in quo warranto into the President’s citizenship; and (2) that such discovery has no
bearing on the actual operative FOIA complaint in this action (under which complaint discovery
is manifestly inappropriate), which he asserts is “supercede[d]” by his requests for quo warranto
proceedings and recusal. At the very least, discovery cannot proceed unless the Court grants
leave to transform this FOIA suit into an inquest by jury into the President’s citizenship. Hence,
until the Court has ruled on that question, discovery must be stayed. Wolf v. CIA, 569
F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”) (quoting
Wheeler v. CIA, 271 F. Supp. 2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003)); Voinche v. FBI, 412 F. Supp. 2d 60,
2
71 (D.D.C. 2006) (FOIA discovery is rare and “is usually limited to the adequacy of the
agency’s search and similar matters”).
Second, Defendants observe that Plaintiff served counsel with his putative requests for
admission on May 22, 2009. Defendants respectfully request expedited consideration of their
motion and ask that a stay be issued prior to June 22, 2009, so that any argument from Plaintiff
that Defendants are somehow obligated to respond to this inappropriate discovery on or before
that date will be foreclosed.
Dated: June 19, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (D.C. Bar No. 418925)
Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Brigham J. Bowen
BRIGHAM J. BOWEN (D.C. Bar No. 981555)
Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883, 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 514-6289
brigham.bowen@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants
June 23, 2009 at 8:56 PM
great analysis, like it
June 23, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Leo I would just like to say thank you once again for your continued perseverance.
Thank you also for Stephen Tonchen Primer. I have down loaded it and posted it at every site I visit especially the Conservative ones like Townhall.
It seems to be well received.
June 23, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Anyone who thinks that Obama is some kind of constitutional “distinguished scholar” is deluded. Leo is right on spot here. One only has to read deVattel’s very clear definition of “natural born citizen”. What Obama team did was use the ignorance and apathy of the masses and tons of money to get elected.
June 23, 2009 at 9:44 PM
deVattel
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2148074/posts
[Ed. Well worth the read people.]
June 23, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Leo,
I have seen smrstrauss on a number of websites, including Mario’s, making the same straw man arguments. I fully believe that Justice Gray intentionally muddied the water of the 14A Juridictional clause in WKA, a clause he succinctly defined only 14 years prior in Elk, in order to capitalize on the doubts expressed in Minor v. Happersett. I think that a born citizen of the 14A was originally supposed to be a Natural Born Citizen, but once the dillution of the Jurisdictioal clause happened after doubts were expressed in Minor, it changed the whole meaning of the amendment (as Gray intended). Gray expresses the reason for the doubts in WKA, that negroes were born in the US of questionable citizenship, because their parents were denied citizenship and may have been born in Africa. Bingham’s statements during the debates about 14A confirm that a person Born and subject to the sole jurisdiction of the US was a Natural Born citizen, and section 1401 still today lists that citizen as the number one citizen on the list of possible citizens, but even the government version of section 1401 sees the jurisdictional clause as only exclusioary of diplomats, not inclusionary of those born and naturalized, which of course is not as intended. Of course that congress, in 1866, probably never meant or envisioned Negroes becoming POTUS either. I think Gray saw that opening and used it to legitimize his benefactor (Arthur). As you have said before, Maybe it is our Karma that has brought us this constitutional crisis. The muddying of the jurisdictional clause and that nick in time where negroes had a questioable no mans land citizenship status has brought us here, where another negro (half?) has ascended to the office and is not constitutionally qualified. However there is Perkins v. Elg, 33 years after WKA, which definitively defined NBC as a person born in the US of Citizen Parents, a status which cannot be taken away by the acts of the parents in minor years, and also in dicta pointed to a Mr. Bohn, born of NON Citizen parents as merely “Citizen”, making a clear distinction. They even pointed to Mr. Steinkauler, born of Naturalized parents as a NBC and being able to be President someday. I think this case (Elg) is death to the 14A or WKA soil = NBC crowd. Maybe NBC was not directly used in the 14A in order to isolate it from these kind of arguments, maybe Bingham envisioned Marbury v. Madison, as a protection of A2S1C5 (1803). M v. M also held that the SCOTUS is the sole definer of constitutional clauses, hopefully they will do it soon. M v. M also held that any Law that goes against the constitution is VOID, so hopefully there will be a time when anchor babies and children of non citizens will have to be naturalized, or automatically Naturalized by the naturalization of their parents, however they would not be Natural Born Citizens.
[Ed. There is absolutely no way possible that a person can reconcile Gray's opinion in the Elk case with his opinion in Wong Kim Ark. It's not possible. Something happened behind the scnenes which caused him to go out on a very dark and deceptive limb. The controversy as to Chester Arthur's POTUS eligibility - Arthur being the POTUS that appointed Gray - is certainly a candidate. And because we have to sit here and wonder 100 + years later about Gray's motivations is the best reason for why we do not want questions of eligibility hanging over any POTUS - it causes doubt as to law and the genuine chain of command. It poisons precedent and serves to damage the structural fortitude of the nation. Doubt as to the legitimacy of a President causes doubt to everything he does in that official capacity, especially SCOTUS appointments.
But just think of the chain of command and the rot this will have should Obama ever take us to war. Do we have to worry about mutiny? This issue is of the most vital importance and enemies of the Constitution and this nation know all too well that a house built on sand cannot stand... and they are smiling.]
June 23, 2009 at 11:14 PM
In O’s press conference today, he used some form of the word “legitimate” seen times.
In speaking about Iran, he said:
“We can’t say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It’s not an isolated instance — a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.
“And so ultimately the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that’s why I’ve been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.”
The question then arises: is it “a sizable percentage… of the people” who will determine the legitimacy of O’s election — not the facts?
[Ed. Yes. I see your point. Read my response in this thread to Mick. The very legitimacy of our nation and saftey of the military chain of command is at stake. Everybody knows that form Obama to Gibbs to the people reading this now. I personally hold John McCain responsible for running and making Obama safe from this. He's virtually the only candidate who could have pulled that off since he was born in Panama. And him a military man. The shame of it is so disgusting. The danger he's put the nation in and the insecurity he's helped foster in the chain of command. Did being POTUS mean more to him than the safety of the Constitution? ]
June 23, 2009 at 11:16 PM
“seven” times – not “seen” times – please fix – thanks
June 23, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Before Obama was on the scene it has been a goal of persons like Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright, Arnold Swarznegger and many others to change the NBC eligibility clause. Dr. Kissinger considers it an insult somehow and a major disapointment to his career. Arnie feels it puts a cap on his ambitions and competitiveness. In a sense this has been an ambush or trap laid many years ago. From their point of view this is a legal flaw and they take it personal. I do not support this view knowing full well how often it has been abused by espionage agents and spies in our history. The expansion of citizenship is the expansion of govt also. The liberal view of the 14th ammd. is to push citizenship to the maximum extent. This is why an Obama was to be expected sooner or later– it is an open secret of the globalists; and a working goal to break that part of the US Constitution so as to break it entirely. Have you ever heard of a liberal case that lacked standing? Bet it will never happen to their disadvantage. Justice Kennedy is a environmental activist- self proclaimed. But thats not a political question. To the liberal mindset native born is NBC. Its probably why Sen Clinton didn’t fight it. I don’t see how Obama can be forced to show that which does not prove NBC- even if in fact it disproves it, when the document is mis-applied in this case. With no proven evidence of wrong doing they’re asking Obama to come to court and convict hiself. No such luck. Obamas book claimed a bc years ago which cannot be the 07 colb. The colb is a unproved fraud- how do you prove dual nationality as truth with a fraudulent piece of evidence when you are really trying to disprove NBC with something that does not pertain to NBC in the first place?? This is offensive to the Constitution but where is the offence? The judge won’t do others homework at these prices. This is lawyers in love and they know it. The colb must be challenged to force discovery on the bc to prove they are the same which disproves eligibility. If they are not the same case won anyway. Your right the issue is NBC but based on what? The fact is he was and is being given a political free pass by the courts, DNC, and media for something of Constitutional and National and International importance and security.
June 24, 2009 at 2:46 AM
Leo,
I have done much reading on this and when I came across the reference to 7 FAM here I found my self wondering about 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency, and how this might address the issue at hand? Your thoughts would be appreciated. I have been saying for months on end every where I go that it matters not where Mr. Obama was born but that he was born to a non-citizen. Thank You and please lets keep this issue on the front burner.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
The FAM failed to point out that the words "natural born" were repealed in 1795 making such persons "citizens" as opposed to "natural born citizens". But yes, it's very interesting to see even the State Department acknowledging that there is a question as to who are "Constitutional Citizens" as opposed to citizens by statute. It's a very interesting point raised by them.
But notice their language in section A:
"citizens" is plural... Obama's own State Department has not changed the current Foreign Affairs manual to say "a parent"... so it appears that not only the Senate resolution for McCain required two citizen parents, but the State Department Foreign Affairs manual, controlled now by Obama, says "citizen parents" as well. How interesting. I don't think I've seen this argument made before so it requires a post of its own. I think your comment has just led to this discovery. Perhaps the argument has been made elsewhere, but I haven't seen it. I believe it's portentious.]
June 24, 2009 at 6:04 AM
Leo,
Your answer to Steven C. Has been addressed before in questions about Leahy and Chertoff’s exchange in the hearings for Resolution 511. Chertoff said that it was his understanding that if one was born of citizen parents then one was a NBC. But they were careful to leave out the Jus Soli part of the equation in the discussion, so that they can argue that they were discussing the NBC status Only of those born outside of US Territory, which of course is preposterous. The attempt of an amendment by McCaskill did the same thing, as did the Kent Law argument about detracting the NBC requirement. They leave enough wiggle room in their argument so as not to acknowledge the combination of Soil and Blood as the true definition and the real reason that they are making the argument. They are careful Not to say that Obama is Not qualified, and use McCain, Schwartzenegger, Albright, etc as foils to legitimize Obama.
June 24, 2009 at 6:24 AM
[...] US Citizen? Some in Congress Still Doubt So you thought the right wing crazies who questioned President Obama’s citizenship during last year’s campaign folded their tents and went home? Guess [...]
June 24, 2009 at 7:22 AM
note: forwarded message from wnd.com CEO regarding dual citizenship issue and observation of
Natural Born Citizen on
World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity Ball…
————
“You can stop sending me this crap.”
Joseph Farah
Editor and Chief Executive Officer
WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com
From: Bill Van Allen
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:25 PM
To: Joseph Farah
Subject: Emailing: Natural Born Citizen World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity Ball…
Natural Born Citizen
World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity Ball…
[Ed. So Farah thinks the Constitution is crap according to this comment?]
June 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Leo thank you for your thoughtfull reply to my post above. I read what you had to say with some relief to be honest – I actually had begun to see the light at the end of the constutional legal tunnel grow terrifyingly dim.
One paragraph of yours renewed my hope, I quote it for clarity:-
“The Walpin Quo Warranto possibility does not require acquiescence from the US Attorney or the AG… Walpin should be considered an “interested party” under the SCOTUS holding in Newman and as such he may proceed without the Government’s authority”
Does that meen Walpin could theorectically initiate a Quo Warranto challenge by consulting a lawyer, and taking his case and legal paperwork to a judge in the DC district?
[Ed. he may do that and if this case is allowed, he can demand a jury trial.]
I shudder to think what the weight of such a responsilbilty for Mr. Walpin would feel like? To an ordinary human being it must be a crushing burden.
June 24, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Instead of ” Where’s the Birth Certificate” How about “Who is Barry Soetoro?” Wear it on T Shirts, post fliers at your local stores ect…. Get the Question out there. Please save my Father’s Country.
June 24, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Leo, You can see how Gibbs gets around not answering questions
relevantly to the points formulated in the question.
They all evade when necessary.
But if the right question is posed (as you’ve taken the time to present ), even if Gibbs would again dance around the answer, the right question
has the potential to strike public curiosity, skepticism and
concern, BUT if the media doesn’t play the scene over & over,
people evaluate the question as Insignificant, except for those who
would do the research on their own.
It’s interesting that currently we see reporters throw out some zinger
questions, so maybe the tides are turning on the media honeymoon or
as you surmise, the questions allowed may be strategy, However, the NBC issue is very complicated for the general public. It involves people
using their brains to see how a president, not being a NBC, poses a
threat to the USA and our way of life. That it’s not merely any matter
of prejudice, conspiracy or merely being “nostolgic” as a nation for wanting to Uphold such an “Outdated” “piece of paper” called the
Constitution. The General Public just “doesn’t Get it”, so they discard it.
Add to that, B Obama’s Charm and no one else in sight “greater” to replace him, and there’s a recipe for not engaging the NBC issue. The
general public is just to lazy to care about it when BO’s NBC status isn’t
a personal problem.
Also in general, there’s a mocking stigma attached to BO’s NBC issue to get passed before the general public would get re-involved. These non-thinkers have the power to vote (and re-elect).
In my opinion, at this point, those of us that are responsible, informed citizens, want to stop the bullet, not be focusing on the gun it came out of. It’s all well and good for us to stick to the issue at hand and play by the rules while we are dealing with corruption, but sometimes we need to be “wise as serpents”.
At this point, I’m too passionate about losing our country to worry about looking like a conspirator. I am not a Conspirator,
rather I am worried that this man, who is enjoying the spotlight, whether he is a puppet or the mastermind, is positioned to bring forward a reform that goes against our basic rights and freedoms, so I don’t apologize for
what I look like being totally against the man for his agendas and for going to great lengths to conceal his documents paying lawyers millions of dollars. I’m not afraid to admit that I would like to see BO removed on any grounds he’s found guilty of, not only in particular his NBC Issue, but
on any grounds because everything he is proposing is poisionous and he’s already gone too far in “Leadership” from what our USA, NBC Presidents down the line have upheld by the Constitution.
If at any point, there is an opportunity to re- present the NBC queston to Gibbs, unless he would trip up on the answer pretty badly, people won’t be stirred to care. Many don’t even know the value of a press conference, however I hope that your question gets an opportunity to
receive the proper response that may shake the nation. On the other hand, I’m more inclined to agree with you on the scenario of that long form suddenly appearing, putting the issue to bed.
Thank You
June 24, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I had a short “e-chat” with Joseph Farah the other day after I contacted him to thank him for an article that included some discussion of the natural born citizen issue.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view& pageId=101162
I also included the following comments.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
This outstanding fully referenced research has just been posted on Leo Donofrio’s blog site. Please help disseminate the facts to help eliminate the misinformation and misconceptions.
One more thing to consider. Perhaps Obama has not produced a birth certificate because he wants people to stay focused on that rather than the unchangeable fact that he was not born to two U.S. citizens. I believe he could produce a birth certificate that no official would ever challenge (legitimate or otherwise) but he can’t change his birth status. Something to think about.
Mr. Farah was very pleasant in our short correspondence.
[Ed. Hopefully WND will arrange their priorities on the eligibility issue, but I've been watching their coverage the whole way and especially with their coverage of my own case they've confused the issues and made them seem to be the same thing... which they certainly are not. The BC issue is a conspiracy theory. The Dual nationality issue is a legal question. Huge difference.]
June 24, 2009 at 1:11 PM
In reply to Exmil_UK, you state “he may do that and IF THIS CASE IS ALLOWED, he can demand a jury trial.
Please explain “IF THIS CASE IS ALLOWED”.
Why would/could it not be allowed?? And by whom??
[ed. The DC District Court Judge might dismiss the case for any number of alleged reasons, standing etc. The Walpin may appeal to the DC Circuit Court and eventually SCOTUS if need be. I'll have detailed analysis of this within the next two weeks, hopefully sooner.]
June 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM
2nd thought: in your first reply to Exmil_UK above on June 23rd at 3:16pm, you state:
[Ed. The Walpin Quo Warranto possibility does not require acquiescence from the US Attorney or the AG... Walpin should be considered an "interested party" under the SCOTUS holding in Newman and as such he may proceed without the Government's authority.]
This statement is why I asked on June 24 at 1:11pm why you state “if this case is allowed.”
June 24, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Sorry for the 3rd post, but I’m just trying to wrap my mind around all this… since you are a natural born teacher, you make things so simple and easy to understand! I’m so happy and glad you are standing up for the constitution and our beloved country. God richly bless!
June 24, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Leo, I think the dual citizenship fact has been brought up and introduced to various media outlets but the ignorance out there re: NBC would also beg the expected responses. Since there is not a written settled decision those who wish to confuse the question certainly would do so. Nowadays, with the false beliefs and lack of concern, just about anyone who becomes known and popular will be promoted for office regardless if he is legitimate – even anchor babies. Law? What law is secure anymore? Even Judge Bork realizes that there are now so many bad laws – extensions with no basis – that it will be hard to ever get back to the originalist approach. Sad, but true.
June 24, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Leo:
FYI the earler poster “smrstrauss” (if you haven’t realized it, which I think you have) posts on many of the pro-O websites I lurk on. His messages are invariably as misdirected and misleading as the one you responded to.
I take a slightly different view of the WND stance on the BC issue and like to point out that it really is an eligibility issue of which the BC itself is merely emblematic; necessary but not sufficient. The WND approach, though, does help make people aware that there may be a “skunk in the woodpile”. To me that part of the approach is a plus.
Luv’d your question for Gibbs in a press conference and yes, certainly, it is a perfectly valid comment for everyone to send to their congresscats!
Look forward to your Walpin QW writeup!!
June 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM
What amazes me,Mr Donofrio is how well versed you are on this subject,and hit the nail right on the head.And yet,all I hear from you is continued reterick without any action.There are other lawyers,fighting the fight,who would welcome the chance to have your help.It must not be a very important subject to you after all.You are either a part of the problem or a part of the solution.Which is it?
[Ed. I don't believe in litigation for the sake of litigation. You don't know what's gone on behind the scenes here. If a case comes my way which I believe has a chance on the merits and which I find to be Constitutionally PROPER, I would enter the system again. I don't believe in filing suits just to see my name appear in the media. So far I have not encountered a plaintiff I feel I could actually win a case for on any issue relevant to this. I won't waste people's time or the Court's time with frivolous suits. All of the eligibility suits now pending will be dismissed since Quo Warranto, impeachment, or mental/physical handicap are the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed.
But thank you so much for the benefit of the doubt. Not.]
June 24, 2009 at 6:53 PM
A better question “right to the point” — Why is and continues to do so, Mr. Obama using taxpayer’s money to pay “high price” attorneys to fight showing his birth certificate, or even his school records to anyone? That should be the question of the day!!!!!!!!!!! Just show the document and stop wasting the millions of dollars that is badly needed in our economy right now.
[Ed. Showing the document will not establish clear nbc status at all. Perhaps it's to his advantage to not show the document/BC. ]
June 24, 2009 at 10:30 PM
[...] World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity Ball… [...]
June 24, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Margie, I really prefer your bumper sticker/billboard idea: “Who is Barry Soetoro?” WND sells this sort of thing (bumper stickers, yard signs, etc.). Maybe Farah would be amenable to your idea, and have some made up for purchase. T shirts, too, are a great idea. There are so many people out there who really won’t know the answer to that question or why it’s being asked.
June 25, 2009 at 12:33 AM
JJ and Leo, may I join you at the puke station? The both of you completely echo my sentiments and yes, Ron Paul is indeed guilty of gross negligence and incompetence as well as every other stooge in Congress. My question is this – rhetorically to the two of you but specifically and openly to our elected officials in Washington – what is going to happen to you if you speak out? Will Obama and his henchmen throw you in jail? Will you be shot or otherwise physically attacked? Unless I’m mistaken, I think Congressmen and senators have some form of security detail and protection at their disposal. Will you be ridiculed, mocked and scorned by your colleagues on Capitol Hill and the media? If so, so what? It’s nothing new for conservatives. If that’s what it takes to get the truth out, isn’t it worth it?
If there is an issue that compels term limits and the full removal of all 535 senators and Congressmen, this is it. In the meantime, maybe we need to passionately but respectfully urge the sponsor and five cosponsors of HR 1503 to aggressively speak up now regarding the dubious natural born citizenship status of Obama. It’s like having an altar call in church (I’m sure as a Christian you can relate, Leo). Sometimes it takes just one gutsy person to admit his or her need of Christ to come forward. When one comes, others follow and it gets easier to do so. Maybe if just one of these 3 Texas Congressmen co-sponsors (Carter, Culberson or Neugebauer) speaks up now, the other two as well as the remaining Republicans in the Texas delegation to Congress might just do so and then it could snowball? Longshot? Perhaps. But if one starts to sing, who knows – maybe the others will join in harmony. After all, “don’t mess with Texas” must mean something, doesn’t it?
Thank you again, Brother Leo, for speaking for all of us patriots. Godspeed!
June 25, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Leo,
If you would, please include this for the benefit of “bassplyr53″ who in his post above feels YOU should be doing more. Your reply to him was exactly correct, of course. And to that I’d like to add:
BASSPLYR53, I’d like to point out to you that this struggle is even more of a fight to shift public awareness then it is to simply file lawsuits. In fact, probably a great deal more; it may well be The Everything. This is a fight we must ALL engage. How dare you sit-back and demand others do this or that. Shame on you!
Like so many others, you have FAILED to grasp the fundamental gift of our Founders: American is a nation of WE the people. If you don’t yet grasp this, I suggest you seek to live under some monarchy or dictatorship whom you feel might better your lot without you having to lift a finger. There are lots to choose from, the World over. America, however, is a PARTICIPATORY form of government.
So, GET OFF YOUR BUTT and do something, anything!
Simply Disgusted w/some of my fellow Americans,
Robare
June 25, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Re: ‘US law requires the President to be a “natural born citizen”.
Absolutely, and that refers only to the place of birth. There is nothing in the Constitution that says “two US parents.”
[Ed. Snip - There's nothing in the Constitution that says it refers to place of birth either. Two can play that game, son. I warned you before about playing intellectual word games. You have an agenda trying to make black seem white and prove 2+2=5. Take it somewhere else. ]
June 25, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Leo, I am in full agreement with you.
I have continued to press that the issue is the definition of natural born citizen and that Obama was British through his father and British law.
And I had Joseph Farah on my show “The Liberty Pole” when his billboard campaign was a mere one week old, and in that interview, I asked him why his site does not focus on the true issue EVER. And I shared my idea for a bumper sticker I have had since December. “British born, not natural born”. He gave a slight laugh, and backed away from the idea, and from my giving him that definition of Vatell and others.
I continue to post new findings on my first website
http://thelibertypole.ning.com/forum including the connection that I have found between Vatell’s book and our Declaration, Articles of Confederation and US Constituion: I call this connection “The Constitution Code”
And when Obama DOES produce his newly-dried 1961 long form, the vast majority of the “birthers” will go away.
But the Constitutional question will remain, coined by you.
How does British law govern the birth status of an American natural born citizen?
[Ed. Hey Ken. Yeah, I just don't have any faith in WND at all. Good cop bad cop if you catch my drift.]
June 25, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Many reasons for hiding the birth certificate — perhaps his father is someone else entirely -
[Ed. Snip - sorry, I just won't entertain posts which allege Obama Sr. wasn't his biological father. Can't go there, sir.]
June 26, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Sorry, I wasn’t alleging, just asking. (I haven’t seen any birth certificate, either.)
.
June 26, 2009 at 7:01 AM
Leo:
Here is the status of Strunk’s case (PACER)
PROSE-NP, TYPE-I
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-02234-RJL
STRUNK v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Assigned to: Judge Richard J. Leon
Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Date Filed: 12/29/2008
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK represented by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
593 Vanderbilt Avenue
Apartment 281
Brooklyn, NY 11238
(845) 901-6767
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE represented by Brigham John Bowen
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington , DC 20530
(202) 514-6289
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: brigham.bowen@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wynne Patrick Kelly
U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington , DC 20530
(202) 305-7107
Email: wynne.kelly@usdoj.gov
TERMINATED: 02/02/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY represented by Brigham John Bowen
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed # Docket Text
12/29/2008 1
COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Filing fee $ 0.00) filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2009)
12/29/2008 SUMMONS Not Issued as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (jf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2009)
12/29/2008 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (jf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2009)
12/29/2008 FIAT ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy on 12/23/08. “Leave to file without prepayment of cost granted” (jf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2009)
01/02/2009 4
SUMMONS Returned Executed U.S. Attorney served on 12/31/2008, answer due 1/30/2009. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
01/05/2009 3
NOTICE of Appearance by Wynne Patrick Kelly on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Kelly, Wynne) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
01/13/2009 5
SUMMONS Returned Executed U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 1/9/2009, answer due 2/9/2009. (jf, ) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
01/26/2009 6
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 1/8/09. (jf, ) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
01/27/2009 7
First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kelly, Wynne) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
01/28/2009 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE answer due 3/31/2009. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 1/28/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
01/28/2009 Set/Reset Deadlines: US Department of State Answer due by 3/31/2009, (kc) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
02/02/2009 8
NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Brigham John Bowen on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Substituting for attorney Wynne Patrick Kelly (Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
02/10/2009 9
AMENDED COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (received on 2/10/09 )(jf, ) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
02/13/2009 10
MOTION for Reconsideration re ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE answer due 3/31/2009 by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) “Leave to file granted” by Judge Richard J. Leon(jf, ) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
02/19/2009 11
Memorandum in opposition to re 10 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
02/22/2009 ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 02/22/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 02/22/2009)
02/27/2009 SUMMONS (4) Issued as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
03/05/2009 Leave to File Denied by Richard J. Leon. Plaintiff’s Surreply Declaration in support of plaintiff’s notice of motion for reconsideration of the order granting defendant’s first motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. (jf) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
03/12/2009 12
SUMMONS Returned Executed U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 3/10/2009, answer due 4/9/2009; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 3/10/2009, answer due 4/9/2009, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney, served on 3/10/2009, answer due 4/9/2009 (jf, ) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
03/19/2009 Leave to File Denied by Judge Richard J. Leon. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion for Recusal. (jf) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
03/19/2009 13
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 5/13/09. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
03/25/2009 14
Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
04/02/2009 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 04/02/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
04/09/2009 15
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 9 Amended Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
04/16/2009 MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise to Respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Answer or Response due 4/23/2009. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 04/16/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
04/17/2009 Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer or response due by 4/23/2009, (kc) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
04/23/2009 16
MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Oct. 16, 2008 FOIA Request), # 2 Exhibit B (Nov. 22, 2008 FOIA Request), # 3 Exhibit C (Dec. 25, 2008 FOIA Request), # 4 Exhibit D (1st DOS Ltr., Jan. 12, 2009), # 5 Exhibit E (2nd DOS Ltr., Jan. 12, 2009), # 6 Exhibit F (Pl.’s Decl., Nov. 22, 2009), # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
04/23/2009 17
ANSWER to 9 Amended Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. Related document: 9 Amended Complaint filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK.(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
04/28/2009 18
ORDERED that, on or before June 1, 2009, the plaintiff shall file his opposition or response to the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. If the plaintiff fails to respond timely, the Court may grant the defendants’ motion as conceded. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/27/09. (kc) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
06/01/2009 19
Memorandum in opposition to re 16 MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/01/2009 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (See Docket Entry 19 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/08/2009 20
REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
06/09/2009 21
MOTION to Stay Discovery by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
06/09/2009 22
RESPONSE re Jury Demand : Opposition to Jury Demand filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
06/15/2009 23
Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/15/2009 24
REPLY to Defendants’ Reponse to Plaintiff’s notice of cross motion of quo warranto demand for jury trial re Jury Demand filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/19/2009 25
REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/19/2009 26 MINUTE ORDER granting 21 Motion to Stay Discovery. No Discovery shall take place until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 06/19/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
1:08-cv-02234-RJL STRUNK v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Richard J. Leon, presiding
Date filed: 12/29/2008
Date of last filing: 06/19/2009
History
Doc.
No. Dates Description
– Filed: 12/29/2008
Entered: 01/03/2009
Summons Not Issued
– Filed: 12/29/2008
Entered: 01/03/2009
Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
1
Filed: 12/29/2008
Entered: 01/03/2009
Complaint
2
Filed: 12/29/2008
Entered: 01/03/2009
Terminated: 12/29/2008
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
4
Filed: 01/02/2009
Entered: 01/05/2009
Summons Returned Executed in FOIA case
3
Filed & Entered: 01/05/2009
Notice of Appearance
5
Filed: 01/13/2009
Entered: 01/14/2009
Summons Returned Executed in FOIA case
6
Filed & Entered: 01/26/2009
Summons Returned Executed as to Attorney General
7
Filed & Entered: 01/27/2009
Terminated: 01/28/2009
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer
– Filed & Entered: 01/28/2009
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
– Filed & Entered: 01/28/2009
Set/Reset Deadlines
8
Filed & Entered: 02/02/2009
Substitution of Counsel
9
Filed: 02/10/2009
Entered: 02/11/2009
Amended Complaint
10
Filed & Entered: 02/13/2009
Terminated: 02/22/2009
Motion for Reconsideration
11
Filed & Entered: 02/19/2009
Memorandum in Opposition
– Filed & Entered: 02/22/2009
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
– Filed: 02/27/2009
Entered: 03/03/2009
Summons Issued as to AUSA
– Filed: 03/05/2009
Entered: 03/06/2009
Leave to File Denied
12
Filed & Entered: 03/12/2009
Summons Returned Executed in FOIA case
– Filed & Entered: 03/19/2009
Leave to File Denied
13
Filed: 03/19/2009
Entered: 03/20/2009
Summons Returned Executed as to Attorney General
14
Filed & Entered: 03/25/2009
Terminated: 04/02/2009
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer
– Filed & Entered: 04/02/2009
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
15
Filed & Entered: 04/09/2009
Terminated: 04/16/2009
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer
– Filed & Entered: 04/16/2009
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
– Filed & Entered: 04/17/2009
Set/Reset Deadlines
16
Filed & Entered: 04/23/2009
Motion to Dismiss
17
Filed & Entered: 04/23/2009
Answer to Amended Complaint
18
Filed & Entered: 04/28/2009
Order
– Filed: 06/01/2009
Entered: 06/05/2009
Jury Demand
19
Filed: 06/01/2009
Entered: 06/05/2009
Memorandum in Opposition
20
Filed & Entered: 06/08/2009
Reply to opposition to Motion
21
Filed & Entered: 06/09/2009
Terminated: 06/19/2009
Motion to Stay
22
Filed & Entered: 06/09/2009
Response to Document
23
Filed: 06/15/2009
Entered: 06/16/2009
Memorandum in Opposition
24
Filed: 06/15/2009
Entered: 06/16/2009
Reply to Document
25
Filed & Entered: 06/19/2009
Reply to opposition to Motion
26 Filed & Entered: 06/19/2009
Order on Motion to Stay
June 26, 2009 at 8:43 AM
Dear Leo,
Some time back you stated a lawsuit needs to be brought against BHO by military personnel.
Dr. Taitz did that. Then you jumped all over her, and said the lawsuit now needs to be Quo Warranto to the attorney in DC. I believe she did that as well. Now you are jumping all over WND for the wrong question being asked in the billboard campaign.
[Ed. No, I said the military "might" have the best standing. That's all I said. And as t standing a case can be made. Then I spoke to military people actually serving right now and they informed me of all the dangers involved with the military getting involved with politics. Dangers to themselves (court martial, insubordination etc) and dangers to the nation (martial law etc)... I explained this to my readers and said we should back off of that. What I got VERY upset with Dr. Taitz about was that she allowed to be published by WND a headline wherein one of her clients was said to have disobyed a Presidential order... while no such thing had happened. The soldier did NOT disobey any orders but Orly allowed that headline on her blog thereby exposing her client to various legal jeopardy for acts he did not commit.
If you will recall, I contacted her and WND and asked them to remove that bogus headline to protect the soldier. Both WND and Orly eventually changed the headline because of my complaints - because my complaint was correct. Please try to be accurate from now on. You will not be extended further courtesy.]
You say you don’t want to jump back into the fray until you’re sure you’ve got something you can win on. It seems to me this is it. Why not pursue it? I sure hope someone doesn’t do so, and then hear you say, ‘that’s not what should be done.’
Would it not be more productive to help those who are in there with their lawsuits, rather than saying, ‘Such and such needs to be done.’ Then when someone does it, you jump all over them, saying something else needs to be done. I realize you did not tell WND to do the billboard campaign. It is irritating when you folks ‘in the fray’ attack one another. It does not help the cause.
I pray EVERY day (sometimes several times a day) for a breakthrough somewhere in this, and I cannot THANK YOU enough for what you HAVE done and continue to do.
With my deepest respect and gratitude to all of you.
Keith Gabriel
[Ed, It helps NOBODY to rush into litigation with suits that have no chance. None of the suits pending right now have any chance for various reasons I've explained as the Constitution will not allow the same. Furthermore, I don't have any clients with proper standing. I'm a lawyer, I can't create standing for myself sir. Under Quo Warranto the "interested person" exception requires an interested person. Nobody has contacted me.
Also, the military do not fall under the exception for interested persons in the Newman SCOTUS case.]
June 26, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Leo, I’m new to your blog, so forgive me if this is ground already covered. What about the Indonesian school registrations where Barry Soetoro is listed as Lolo Soetoro’s child (thus Indonesian by his adoption)? The divorce papers (filed after “Barry” reached majority) also list him and his sister, Maya, as children of the divorcing couple. What is the law regarding this aspect of Obama’s legal citizenship status let alone NBC standing?
[Ed, It has nothing to do with nbc standing. If he was nbc at birth, he's nbc. If he wasn't, and I believe he was not, than he can never be nbc. Birth or bust.]
June 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Leo, I am dancing with joy that you are back in the battle and fighting for the preservation of the U.S. Constitution. I am trying to join in the fight to do anything I can to exorcise the usurper from the presidency. I hope I did not screw up in the exchange of emails with the editor of FactCheck.org and responded accurately to his reply which was a link to his blog. I emailed the editor of FactCheck.org your great question for Obama to answer.
Editor:
This is a question which requires a Fact Check answer for the resident constitutional scholar and Professor Obama in the White House:
During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. [At the time of his birth, his father was a Kenyan, British citizen.] Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed — at birth — by British law?
Warning! Don’t hold your breath for a straight answer! One of these days, some White House reporter with integrity will ask this of Professor Obama. If you want the facts which check out, go to Leo Donofrio, Esq.’s blog post http://www.naturalborncitizen.com for the real constitutional scholar’s brief on presidential elegibility requirements and get the facts. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/world-net-daily-drops-the-potus-ineligiblity-ball/
Editor of FactCheck.org reply was a link to its blog:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html and signed,
Joe Miller
Staff Writer
FactCheck.org
320 National Press Building
Washington DC 20045
[Ed. There you go. They have no answer to the question except to try to make it look like the same thing as the BC.]
My reply to the Editor’s email response:
Mr. Miller:
Thank you, I appreciate your swift response to my email. However, it does not answer the question which was posed: How a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed — at birth — by British law? Let me rephrase the question. Mr. Obama, since you were a British citizen at birth, through your father, a Kenyan, how can you be a natural born citizen so as to be eligible to be POTUS, which the US Constitution requires that a U.S. citizen be born on U.S. soil, of two parents who are American citizens?
Answer: A natural born citizen cannot be governed at birth by British law, since the Constitutional requirements to be POTUS is, a natural born citizen of the U.S., born on U.S. soil, of two parents who are BOTH citizens of the U.S. Therefore, no one can be eligible to be POTUS, who is of dual or foreign citizenship AT BIRTH! Mr. Obama, as a constitutional scholar and teacher, you know that to be the FACTS and, therefore, YOU know yourself to be inelegible to be POTUS, and have knowingly compromised the Constitution and have usurped the presidency with the stamp of approval by the Democrat party.
The issue of the birth certificate is a brilliant, but deceptive, diversion to keep the American people’s attention away from the fact that you do not meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to be president. You could have been born in the U.S., but the birth certificate is not the issue–your citizenship at birth and the citizenship of your parents are the crucial issues. Further, Mr. Obama, you have, as usual with politicians before the election, not kept your promise of “transparency” since you have sealed all your records, not only the vault copy of your original birth certificate, but those of your college and, by the way, the origin of your passport when you went to Pakistan. Mr. Obama, why have you kept your records sealed from scrutiny? Why have the press corp been refused to ask questions of your elegibility to be POTUS? It will all come out in future legal proceedings and there will be a constitutional crisis of major proportions!
Mr. Miller, I’m just one interested citizen, but you can take it to the bank, at this very moment, there are very serious legal challenges being composed to unmask the usurper in the White House. Stay tuned. I hope, as has been reported, that you are not a shill for Obama but really checking the facts for the love of America and the Constitution.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/world-net-daily-drops-the-potus-ineligiblity-ball/
June 26, 2009 at 9:44 PM
the reason, and the only reason every member of congress and the senate is hiding from this issue is because they hear the words of America’s most notorious race baiters echoing in thier heads- and the fact is, they do not want a repeat of 1967 and that is what will result, except a thousand times worse….anyone who thinks Obama supporters would just walk away and say “oh well” if he were removed are fools.
And, to think it is people who attend Church Services in America that are put on the terrorist watch list- America is no more folks..quit kidding yourselves.
June 27, 2009 at 6:13 AM
Leo – It tried to add a bit to your cause …
In response to Gen Beck’s website and the recent letter to our nation’s leadership, I wrote an E-Mail ‘More About An Open Letter to our Nation’s Leadership …’, and included the following therein:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/8/an-open-letter-to-our-nations-leadership
If you’ve read the letter, – … you might want to sign a petition and voice your comments. If you haven’t read the letter, – … you really might do well by clicking on the link above. Note: As of Saturday, June 27, 2009, there are over 140,000 signings and comments. If you’d care to join hundreds of thousands of other citizens, click on the above link.
You’ll be given an opportunity to have or not have your name shown, – … as you choose. I don’t normally sign most on-line petitions. But, -… I did on this one! Here’s your chance to add yourself to many others wanting honesty, truth and good government.
Please pass this on to many others …..
I commented on the petition’s website as follows: Why aren’t our members of Congress addressing and confirming with absolute certainty Obama’s citizenship – or the lack thereof? It should be demanded until answered. THIS IS WHAT THEY SHOULD ASK: During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?
I hope this helps a bit …
June 27, 2009 at 12:54 PM
This may be a hoax, but who knows? Obama’s KENYAN birth certificate for sale on ebay
http://realnoooz.today.com/2009/06/27/obamas-kenyan-birth-certificate-on-ebay/
June 27, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Leo, My previous post questioned the CITIZENSHIP status of Obama re: his Indonesian citizenship that extended even into his adult years. If he never renounced that citizenship as an adult and was never naturalized as an American citizen, then is he actually an American citizen at all, or is he an illegal alien? This is an honest question for you that is above and beyond the NBC issue. I mean, unless there’s some legal loophole that I, not being an immigration lawyer, don’t know about, it would seem that if he were an American citizen by birth(I know that’s a big “IF”), he would have become an ex-pat by virtue of his Indonesian adoption.
June 27, 2009 at 11:21 PM
[...] Leo Donofrio recently chimed in on the recent back-and-forth between WND reporter Les Kinsolving and Press Secretary Gibbs [...]
June 28, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Leo,
Since it has been established that the COLB published on line by Factcheck & Fight the Smears are fake and Obama’s Selective Service System registration also appears to have been recently conjured up, couldn’t a civil RICO complaint be filed against these entities? It would appear all the necessary components are there for a civil RICO complaint without needing to name Obama as a defendant. It could prove the corrupt acts and conspiracy of these nonprofit organizations and the SSS to implement and further the fraud of Obama’s presidency, without Obama’s direct interference, unless of course he intervened.
[Ed. No. Civil Rico claims demand that their be an injury in fact to property or business relationship. You need a monetary injury for civil rico according to the statute.]
June 28, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Hi Leo,
Please help me with the following:
What is the chance of success of suing Cheney for violating the Constitution by not asking the constitutionally required question “Does anyone object?” (paraphrased) at the Elector’s Confirmation hearing at the joint-session of Congress in January? Or such suit would also be dismissed based on the Standing Doctrine?
[Ed. No chance.]
If the answer is positive, could the ruling trigger further events or at least allow further lawsuits?
Someone is advancing the theory, that if pushed against the wall, HI officials would produce a 100% perfect looking long-form, even if that were fraud. Do you really think that any HI official would risk possible stiff penalties, even if persuaded, to commit fraud?
As the long-form contains the name of the hospital and other traceable details, it would be easy for any detective, worth his salt, to verify it. What do you think?
[Ed. How do you know he was born in a hospital? Maybe he was born in a manger. But seriously folks, the no hospital records thing is a red herring. People can be born at home too you know. As for Hawaii verifying records, they have already done that explicitly as to the long form they say they have and implied by not complaining that the COLB is a fake. People, you are really barking up the wrong tree on this BC thing and you will never have satisfaction as to it. Keep on keepin on but you're not going anywhere on the BC issue. Not in my opinion. It's ancillary to the main nbc issue, but it's not the main course and all you BC detectives are being played like a fine fiddle.]
June 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I understand that “It’s ancillary to the main nbc issue” provided that he was born in Hawaii. But it is a simple issue and most Americans can not understand the constitutional issue of interpreting loyalty due to the citizenship of a parent.
[Ed. It's not just loyalty, it's influence. It's possible to be loyal to the US and also influenced in your decisions by citizenship elsewhere. The framers were trying to avoid such conflict.]
On the other hand, if he is not a citizen (ordinary), which seems to be the case unless he was born in HI, he can not be a natural born citizen therefore he is not eligible, and even the judges so hell-bent protecting him, can not make him eligible. That is very simple and straightforward, every American will understand it.
[Ed. It's also a conspiracy theory or epic proportions. Just think of all the people needed to pull it off. The legal question is simple. Anyone can understand it. If you were born with as much citizenship in Great Britain as here, then you cannot be natural born US citizen. People can easily understand that such a person could go as far as being a Senator in this country... but that to be Commander in chief you need something more undiluted in order to put our troops in harms way. Anybody could graps that concept. How many Presidents are we going to have? Not many, so if it seems unfair, the trade off for national security and safety of our troops should trump any sense of possible unfairness. John McCain should have stood up for the concept. That he didn't really annoys me and makes me wonder just what the hell (no pun intended) we are dealing with here.]
RE: “…all you BC detectives are being played like a fine fiddle”. You are absolutely right if he was indeed born in HI. But it is a very expensive fiddle; it is a Stradivarius, as his legal costs are near $1 M. Maybe it is worth playing the music, if he was born in HI, so he diverts attention from your issue.
[Ed. How in the world can you say he's diverted anyone's attention from the issue? Are you kidding me? He's diverted attention from the nbc issue and the proof is in the airwaves my friend. Who is discussing the dual nationality issue? Nobody. Who is discussing the BC issue? Many people. Now what issue is truly being diverted? The dual nationality issue for sure. You've got it backwards.]
I agree with you 99% of the time, but I don’t agree with you on: “As for Hawaii verifying records, they have already done that explicitly as to the long form they say they have and implied by not complaining that the COLB is a fake.” The COLB as you know does not show place of birth and it could have been issued to foreign born.
[Ed. Yes, but Hawaii is is not saying it's forged either. They don't appear to believe it's a forged document. Are you prepared to acknowledge that?]
No HI official explicitly confirmed the birthplace. They they were not compelled to disclose the birthplace explicitly or implicitly and they did not. They simply published carefully worded statements totally avoiding the birthplace issue. Sorry, I do not see any confirmation there.
[Ed. They're carefully worded statements are confirmation enough that they are backing him up. So good luck with that. It's going nowhere. Hawaii is NEVER going to be in your corner on this. It's a losing issue. I'd like to see more proof he was born in Hawaii and he ought to provide it... but you're allowing him to control the game. He can't control the answer to the legal question... but if he was born in Hawaii and he can prove it, you're being set up for a take down.]
The definition of “natural born citizen” is not quite so simple; however, if SCOTUS ever defines the term, as one would think they should, and political correctness will not cloud their judgment, your definition would probably prevail.
However, in my opinion it is unlikely, especially with the new appointee as part of SCOTUS soon, that any of the lawsuits will be heard on merit. 4 votes are necessary to rule on merit. So far no case has achieved that.
Also, a lawyer filed some papers asking SCOTUS for the definition, independently from any eligibility-lawsuit. As far as I know, that was rejected as well. So we may never know what nbc means. And it will be swept under the rug forever, like Chester Arthur’s ineligibility. The Constitution is no longer enforceable.
[Ed. On this we agree.]
June 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Natural Born Citizen is a legal and a Constitutional issue. Constitutionaly, “who Obama is” is much more important then “where Obama was”. To solve the Natural Born Citizen issue is to solve the root issue.
June 30, 2009 at 2:16 AM
RE: “All of the eligibility suits now pending will be dismissed since Quo Warranto, impeachment, or mental/physical handicap are the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed.”
Dr. Taiz or some other attorneys have Quo Warranto procedures in progress. On what grounds can the judges dismiss these cases, and not hear them on merit? Are you implying that they can not use the Standing Doctrine as they used it to stop the ineligibility law-suits? I may have missed some of your notes on this. Would you please tell me where I can read more about this?
July 2, 2009 at 2:58 PM
LEO, PLEASE MAKE THAT FINAL QUESTION IN BLACK TYPE…WHEN WE TRY TO COPY AND SEND IT IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO READ!!!!
July 7, 2009 at 7:07 AM
FYI …
E-Mail that I sent to Major Garrett at Fox News at 8 AM EDT today,
( with a Cc to Glenn Beck and Hannity ):
For Major Garrett -
Many citizens in our country saw highlights of your recent interview with Barack Obama in Moscow ( July 7th, 2009 ).
And, many of us noted your comment about you and he having a ‘history’ about follow up comments.
One thing that REALLY might be worth doing ( at a White House press conference ), – … and then would likely be worthy of doing a good ‘follow-up’ :
After the World Net Daily Drops ( Dropped ) The POTUS Ineligibilty Ball …
As said by Leo Donofrio on his website: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/world-net-daily-drops-the-potus-ineligiblity-ball/
Let me make this perfectly clear – below is the question that must be asked of White House Press Secretary Gibbs should anyone ever have the chance again.
It’s been crafted with razor sharp precision so that slippery tongued vixens can’t slither out of the truth nexus without exposing themselves to even the most sleepy of audiences.
Make this question your mantra. Don’t be distracted from it.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ASK GIBBS NEXT TIME:
During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?
A reply will be welcomed.
Your action on the above will be greatly appreciated by hundreds of thousands of voting US citizens.
Thank you in advance, … Bob R
July 8, 2009 at 12:56 AM
Leo, just to let you know the source of fastcheck on Obama being a dual citizen is saying it didn’t say what they said they said.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/06/things-you-might-not-know-about-barack-obama/?partner=yahoo_headlines
Editor’s note: One of the items on this list has been removed because it mistakenly repeated a report that Barack Obama holds dual United States-Kenyan citizenship. This erroneous information was never reported in the Rocky Mountain News print edition.
July 8, 2009 at 8:07 PM
On July 4th I sent an email to every senator and this is what I asked each and I give the typical reply from most of them from my own senator Saxby Chambliss below that.
MESSAGE:
How can A Natural born citizen be governed at birth by British law, as Obama
says he was?
Look at what it takes to be the President, Natural Born Citizen not just a
Native Born Citizen!
The United States Constitution, Article. II. Section. 1. clause 5 “No Person
except a Natural Born Citizen, can be President.”
Now look at Article. I. section 3. clause 3. of our Constitution were in it
states you need be only a Citizen to be a Senator.
MAILING ADDRESS:
305 Avalee Dr.
Brooks, GA 30205
Responding to your message
From: Saxby Chambliss (saxby_chambliss@chambliss.senate.gov)
You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk
Sent: Mon 7/06/09 3:52 PM
To: texdix@live.com
Dear Mr. Dix:
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns over President Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution 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.” President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
On December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Donofrio, regarding President Obama’s citizenship. Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding President Obama’s citizenship, which claim he was really born on foreign soil, Mr. Donofrio’s case concedes that President Obama was born in Hawaii but contends he still held foreign citizenship at birth. Mr. Donofrio’s lawsuit argues that since President Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of President Obama’s birth, then Obama was a British citizen at birth and not eligible to be President of the United States.
Another attorney, Mr. Berg, has filed a lawsuit regarding President Obama’s citizenship and is waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court will take up the case or not. A federal judge in Eastern Pennsylvania threw out Mr. Berg’s lawsuit in October, saying he lacked legal standing to bring the challenge since he could not show he faced individual harm even if he could prove his claims about President Obama’s citizenship. The judge did not get to the merits of the case. Mr. Berg is appealing the standing issue to the Supreme Court.
If a person is born in the United States, a certificate of live birth issued where one is born is sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship. The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic, shows that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance
July 14, 2009 at 11:11 AM
I just wrote an email to World Net Daily pleading with them to focus on “natural born citizenship” and not the birth certificate. (With the volume of emails they get I will be surprised if it is even read.)
WND had another opportunity to confront the White House Press Secretary when Les Kinsolving questioned the authenticity of the letter that Obama allegedly wrote to the Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu.
I am so frustrated by WND and others who focus on the birth certificate. How do we get through to these people?
By focusing on the real issue, maybe some people will begin to realize that Obama’s eligibility is not a wacko conspiracy theory, but a legitimate constitutional issue of utmost importance.
July 16, 2009 at 12:59 AM
the fundamental problem is the editor confuses US jurisdiction with British jurisdiction. In this case it doesn’t matter what the British believe and in fact not a single iota of that would be relevant in any court case. A decision would only consider the facts as it pertains to American law not British law. At the age of majority Pres Obama did not come forward and take an oath of allegiance to Britain and was therefore not a British citizen. Whereas the British may have considered him a British subject, the US had no knowledge of and further consider it irrelevant what the British believe and so in no way was he in their jurisdiction and further any claim would have been settled at majority. This is a specious claim.
[Ed. Your theory is false because whether one is a natural born citizen must be decided at birth, hence the use of the word "born". One may not be nbc but might be a US citizen. If one is not nbc at birth one can never be nbc. It cannot be sanitized. You have it at birth or you do not. Obama's birth status, according to his own words, was "governed" by Great Britain. You are free to ask Obama or his representatives what they meant by that and report back here. I already know what they meant as do most of my readers. But if you can get a quote from a relevant Obama spokesperson as to why he used the word "governed" I will be happy to publish such a statement.]
July 16, 2009 at 4:29 AM
At his birth, Obama’s citizenship was governed by the laws of the U.S., and Hawaii, too.
Under those laws, Obama is a natural-born citizen. We don’t give up our law to British law in our own nation. We fought two wars to avoid doing that… [Ed. Comment was snipped. Take your mouth elsewhere if you can't submit a rational question without the drama. I'll address the question but you've been warned once about keeping the insulting language out of the equation.
Your attempt to simplify the issue down to a base falsity about bowing to British law has no basis in law at all. First of all, recall that it was Obama who said his birth status was governed by Great Britain. I simply quoted Obama's own wording. Take your argument to Factcheck.org and the the White House. They have provided the quote. Furthermore, go read the State Department Foreign Affairs manual and you will see that we do bow to British law when it comes to dual nationality. It is the law in this country that when a dual citizen is in the country of such duality that country has a greater hold on him legally than we do. The Foreign Affairs manual - now published by Obama's own State Department - clearly states that dual nationality provides problems for the Government. And nowhere are such problems more evident than if one with dual nationality at birth occupies the office of POTUS.]
July 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
The natural born citizen issue has been at the supreme court as you know and went NOWHERE. The American people will see it as a minor point since most people never heard of it and get confused with a native born citizen or just a citizen. If all you’ve got is NBC, nothing will happen.
[Ed. I'm sorry that all we have is the law and the law is not good enough for you. But you are right. This is not going anywhere. Obama is here to stay and will not be removed. I have witnessed first hand the protection he has from all facets of Government right up to the Supreme Court. He is totally and utterly protected. But that will not stop people from discussing the law and trying to make it clear that despite despots the law is in our favor.
As for the BC, it's not going to provide you with any relief since he controls the issue and will likely stuff his documents down your throat at the right time. If you think the issue is now suddenly catching steam because they screwed up... you're just naive. Public perception is being controlled at a pace.]
The birth certificate issue people can understand. Forgery they understand. Obama can’t have a legitimate BC or he would have produced it a long time ago. Your thinking that it was his plan all along gives him WAY too much credit. He CAN”T take a chance on providing a forgery because he would face prison if caught.
ALL ofthe above I say. To ignore the BC issue is to lose. NBC went NOWHERE and BC is alive and well and making significant progress in the courts by Orly Taitz who isn’t a quitter. You did great work on NBC but it didnt get any traction.
Also using the Senate resolution on McCain is dubious. Why would you give legitimacy to a resolution that is a FRAUD? Just because a stopped watch is right twice a day, I wouldn’t wear one just so I could say “oh look it’s noon” or “Look it’s midnight”. McCain is no more a natural born citizen than Obama. At least we know McCain is a citizen. I’ve seen HIS long form birth certificate, even though it proves he wasn’t born on U.S. soil. Both his parents were citizens and a retroactive law was passed for people working in the canal zone which gave McCain citizenship by statute.
It looks like we will be rid of Obummer anyway after one term.
July 19, 2009 at 9:44 PM
PLEASE PASS THIS AROUND!
Citizens Taking Obama to Task!
Obama is not qualified to be president (not born on US soil). Therefore, everything he does acting in the capacity of president is ILLEGAL. Every bill he signs, every speech he gives, every order he issues to any soldier in the U.S. armed forces is null and void! And if we remain silent, we basically become a partaker in this crime against the United States.
So while the media and our government officials are remaining silent on this…
Our goal is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union:
Please take a moment to read this: This website has a specific purpose in mind. AmericanGrandJury.org can HELP YOU if are looking to start, organize and manage a Citizen’s Grand Jury.
http://americangrandjury.org/
Even if the American Grand Jury were ignored, and deemed legally impotent, we can still expect a powerfully awakening increase in awareness and outrage on the part of the citizens. There are many potencies beyond the legal system. However, it is highly unlikely that not even one jurisdiction will take action on the indictment. All we need is one jurisdiction to order “Discovery.” The case against AKA OBAMA is unique because it will be over in the Discovery phase, as the first step in a criminal complaint. The goal of the project I support is not to convict and punish AKA Obama but to discover what AKA OBAMA doesn’t want us to know, and why he doesn’t want us to know it.
Our goal will be achieved without a trial or a verdict.
Our goal is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union:
* 50 States
* 3,007 entities named “County”
* 16 Boroughs in Alaska11 Census Areas in Alaska (areas not organized into Boroughs)
*64 Parishes in Louisiana
* 42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)
* 1 District – the Federal District or District of Columbia.
For a total of 3,191 opportunities to bring criminal charges against offending politicians.
Even if an independently convened grand jury is mistakenly seen as merely people assembling to exercise their Constitutional right to “redress their grievances,” or report crimes, that is no small thing. Hundreds of people in such “assemblies” will be examining evidence and presenting the results of their investigation to appropriate county, state, and federal authorities, some of whom will almost certainly form more conventional grand juries to indict AKA OBAMA. Can one honestly surmise that there is not one prosecutor or judge in the entire nation who questions AKA OBAMA’s eligibility to be President?
Once the American Grand Jury presentments are made, it is likely that many prosecutors and judges will want a copy of the evidence. [the original birth certificate]
The American Grand Jury organization with which I am affiliated is using recognized expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic testimony. The guiding principles for the project are the usual protocols of epistemology, scientific methodology, and rules of evidence.
Any prosecutor or judge who ignores such evidence and testimony is at risk of being seen as acquiescent.
An excellent article by international columnist Mark S. McGrew will help the reader to understand the Grand Jury story.
Rev. Sewell, an ordained Christian clergyman, a Pastoral Psychotherapist, a member of Mensa, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He is a frequent commentator on religious and political issues.
Press Contact – Media only please:
Sam Sewell, National Spokesperson for http://americangrandjury.org/
REF:
VIEW OBAMA’S FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE HERE: http://obamadocuments.wordpress.com/
July 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Leo ; Any of this have merrit
http://americangrandjury.org/
http://bobcampbell.me/public/
July 24, 2009 at 2:17 AM
i not a lawyer but wasn’t Chester Arthur the first to become president while being son of a british citizen until his father the british citizen became naturalized while Chester was 14 years old, all kept quiet and he grew up and became president, this did happen and even through Chester was born in usa while his Dad was a british citizen
July 24, 2009 at 2:19 AM
Leo, what would you advise to get this man out of the office he now holds illegally?
July 24, 2009 at 7:54 AM
ne of the things that LaRouche is saying is that the MEDPAC of Obamacare is the same as the Tiergarten bill that Hitler used to eliminate the disabled, the old, the chronically ill. He says that this is now an impeachable offense. Furthermore, when FDR pushed the Social Security act and it was deemed unconstitutional, the supreme court had to weigh in. At the same time, FDR proposed “packing the court” with extra justices for any Justice over 73. so, the swing vote Justice Owen Roberts voted for the consitutionality of the Soc. Sec act in Stewart Machine Co. v Davis” (301 US 548) 1937
http://starmaker.today.com/2009/07/24/general-welfare-clause-of-the-constitution-vs-obamacare/
Justice Roberts knew only too well that the soc. sec. did not fall under Article I sec 8 (General Welfare), because the Constitution listed seventeen limited powers of congress.
but it was “the vote in time that saved nine”
July 26, 2009 at 7:13 AM
Leo, just got this:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/07/24/mccain_lawyers_investigated_obama_citizenship.html?referrer=js
John McCain’s lawyers investigated obama’s citizenship and found that he was born in Hawaii. You are absolutely correct Leo, obama, in a brilliant strategy, is going to shove his birth certificate down the “birthers’ throats at the right time and place to “kill” all their arguments and convince all America, to believe he is elegible to be POTUS.
Leo, as you have been saying, Quo Warranto is the only way to go to force obama’s NBC qualifications to get a hearing before the courts. But, even should that happen, obama has all bases covered with the protectection of the courts all the way up to SCOTUS, and not about to get kicked out of office anytime soon. It seems all those corporate execs and inspector generals that were fired by obama, have faded away and are out of the game plan to contest obama’s quals to be POTUS. Only by God’s intervention into history can we be saved from this monster usurper which is out to destroy America the Beautiful. May God have mercy on us!!
July 28, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Leo, watching Fox News Bill O’Reilly yesterday, he had a segment on CNN Lou Dobbs who brought up the “birthers” case against obama. Bill had an obama hack (can’t remember his name) who was demanding that CNN fire Lou Dobbs for publicizing that racist, quack conspiracy on his show. Bill tried to reason with him that Dobbs wasn’t a racist, and maybe, the reason that segment was on because he wanted to bring CNN’s poor ratings up. I got the idea to contact Lou Dobbs with an email this a.m. suggesting that he forget the BC birthers and look at obama’s constitutional natural born citizen quals to be POTUS, with you and J. Turley Esq. to discuss the arguments. Hope against hope in the night of faith.
Lou,
Thank you for bringing up the “birthers” issue and making the obamadorers yelling for your scalp. But, you must know that obama was born in Honolulu, it’s mentioned in the paper at his birth. obama is hiding his birth certificate to keep attention away from the fact that he was a British citizen at birth through his father, a Kenyan of British citizenship. obama admits this on his website http://www.fightthesmears.org, honest! If you really want to stoke the fires and get national attention–and great ratings—take up the US Constitution’s requirements to be POTUS: a US citizen, born on US soil, of two parents who are citizens of the USA, obama does NOT meet those quals and is inelegible to be POTUS, If you really want to be a smash hit, contact Leo Donofrio, Esq, http://www.naturalborncitizen.com
[Ed. not my URL mine is http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
and the well-known Jonathan Turley, Esq., constitutional lawyer, to have a discussion on obama's "natural born citizen" status. You will be shocked to learn the case against obama is real solid and based in history and constitutional law. Forget the birthcertificate and the birthers' case, it's a diversion set up by obama. The real issue is his natural born citizenship qualifications to be POTUS. Thank you Lou for your attention to this most important issue of obama-usurper in the White House.
[Ed. CNN is not going to have me one discussing the nbc issue. No freakin way is that going to happen. The whole MSM dog and pony show this week was controlled by the other side. ]
July 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Leo, sorry for the goofball reference to your url. There is no excuse for the error after all this time. Perhaps I am too gullible-stupid to realize, there is not an iota of integrity in all of the corrupt MSM to actually publish what is the essence of the Constitution’s requirements to be POTUS. You are too good a poker player not to know the real deal, “the whole MSM dog and pony show this week was controlled by the other side”: Juse last week: the obama mouthpiece allows press questions about the BC; a Repub congressman gets blasted by his constituents for saying that the usurper is a “citizen”; CNN Lou Dobbs brings up the “birthers” conspiracy; Bill O’Reilly takes up Dobbs’ segment on the Factor; and, surprise, surprise, NOT, look what I picked up this a.m., once again the Hawaii hacks-for-the-usurper come out AGAIN to validate obama’s birth certificate!! Dog and pony show for sure!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_birth_certificate;_ylt=Av4PADY2Qav0VBxC7ZBlQXUDW7oF
The poll numbers for obama are dropping like a lead balloon, American people are beginning to realize this guy is an empty, socialist windbag, no substance and a lot of hot air. Expect another diversionary tactic by the usurper, maybe a show and tell birth certificate conference. There’s always hope where there is life! God bless you Leo and keep you in the palm of Hand always.
July 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM
better yet.. how can a natural born citizen have dual citizenship at birth?
July 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM
So, Eve: Tell me, how can the child of an American citizen woman, born in America, have less rights than the bastard child born in America of an illegal alien woman?
Law is clear in the latter case: Full rights of all citizens. How should Obama get any less rights?
[Ed. The rights of each "citizen" are the same. Natural born status is not a right, it's a requirement to be President. Being President is not a right. All Natural born citizens are not eligible to be President. NBC is a qualification to be Pres... All rights of citizens are equal for citizens and natural born citizens. No rights are denied to any citizen who is not nbc. It's an exclisionary Constitutional rule designed to exclude candidates not include them. It narrows the field, that was its purpose.]
July 30, 2009 at 8:20 PM
I was wondering why there wasn’t more question about Obama’s dual citizenship, in light of all the “Birth in Kenya” hoorah for his “Long-form” Birth Certificate. I’m glad to see someone calling attention to this very important legal question. As to Obama’s two “Birth Certificates”, there is a lot of confusion about what the web circulated Certificate of Live Birth actually represents as opposed to the Archival Birth Certificate. I will attempt to clear some of that up
I posted this originally as an explanation of the difference between a printout from a database and a photocopy of an original document for someone who claimed he could not get a copy of his “Original” Birth Certificate from the Baton Rouge, La Parish Clerk- I Posted:
Begin Post
I didn’t work with Baton Rouge ( What Parish is it ?) Clerk of Court, but I helped convert most of the Cajun Parishes to computer records 10 to 15 years ago, and I assure Flatlander100 that someone at his Parish Clerk Of Court can either show him a) the original birth certificate filed when he was born or b) show him a microfiche image or computer scanned image of his original birth certificate, or c ) have a good explanation of which hurricane destroyed his original birth certificate shortly after his birth before it had been microfiched and sent to archival storage. ( this would be the only acceptable reason for there not being an archived Microfiche of the original filing- I’m imagining Flatlander is more than 10 years old, which was when we started converting Parishes to Digital Scanned archives from Photo microfiched archives )
There are two systems of record keeping at any modern courthouse.
The public one grants access to a computer database which has been filled with data by minimum wage filing clerks/ data entry personnel who spend their time entering information from the original paper filings from lawyers, hospitals, etc. These databases are used as the most convenient way of searching for required information, but if the information was entered incorrectly, it is still incorrect information, Garbage in, garbage out. This is why the Clerk of Court maintains the second, Archival Record system, which contains either a microfiche photo or digital scan of the actual filed document. My company sold software that allowed an abstracter to find the information on the searchable data base and then use that to pull up an image of the actual document to see that the information was in fact correct, This is most often the case with Land records, but most states “seal” vital records.(ie Birth, Death, Marriage) to a greater or lesser extent to prevent identity theft, and they do not allow access to the archived images to the general public .
Where this comes into play here is that what Obama has made available is a “Certificate of Live Birth” generated from a computer data base- NOT AN ARCHIVAL IMAGE OF HIS ACTUAL FILING OF LIVE BIRTH. In short, if you would give me 5 minutes with the Honolulu County vitals data base, I could print him out a cute little Certificate of Live Birth that certified he was born on the far side of the moon.
Does that sort of thing happen? Of course it does. Which is why, I assure you, your Parish Clerk can provide you with an actual photocopy/scanned image print of your “Birth Certificate”, IF YOU MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT YOU WANT- otherwise she’ll give you a beautifully sealed and pre printed certificate that looks like a Monk inscribed it, with the details printed out from the searchable database, and it could state you were born on the far side of the moon, if that’s what someone has altered the database to say. Why the fancy certificate for the low-grade information? Well, let’s just say somebody makes a good living printing up fancy certificates. And also, the actual photocopy/scanned image is archived and is a lot more trouble to print because it does have to be printed from a microfiche machine ( if it hasnt been digitally scanned, which it would not have been in 1961)
So what’s with Obama’s Birth Certificate ? I Guarantee that if he wanted to, he could get a photocopy/microfiche of his actual Birth Certificate. Why doesn’t he? Maybe any number of reasons – I suspect that it shows something like his religion being listed as “Muslim”. Which would have been inconvenient if it had come out during the campaign, but doesn’t disqualify him from being President, I suspect that what will happen in the end is what happened to Nixon- it wasn’t the fact of the Watergate Burglaries that got him, it was his attempt to cover it up. I’d be pleased to find out Obama was born in Hawaii, as I suspect he really was. But until he actually shows what it is he’s hiding, the whole thing is just going to snowball.
End post
In light of your theory that Obama is just holding off releasing his “Long Form” Birth Certificate, I believe it is imperative that people quit referring to “Certificate of Live Birth” Vs “Long Form Birth Certificate”, and refer to what’s being discussed in proper and hence more definitive terms. What Obama has released is a computer generated printout from the searchable database, and it doesn’t require any great conspiracy to explain differences between it and the Archived Original Birth Certificate, The computer data base has no “long term memory”, it is not, by definition susceptible to “Forgery” it is a wholly computer generated fiction just like pictures of flying saucers on the White House Lawn. What gives this fiction its usefulness is that it easily searchable and completely and readily correctible.
It is, by definition, a “Forgery” and a fiction- it is a State authorized and certified “informational copy” of the actual filled out in long hand and signed birth document.
This is a useful legal fiction in the same way that a paper dollar bill is “Money” and “Represents” a certain amount of actual ( ?Gold. not any more) (Silver ? nope) ok what it represents is no more nor less than your belief in the full faith and credit of the United States Government, who collectively assert that this small sheet of relatively worthless paper actually represents a certain quantity of “Value”. Why does it HAVE value ? Well, because (let’s all clap for Tinkerbelle here) We Believe that it does!
What’s this got to do with Obamas Birth Certificate. What Obama has posted is the informational equivalent of the dollar bill. It is worthless in itself and it is no more susceptible to being checked for “Forgery” than a photograph of your spouse is capable of being checked for lung cancer. It is no more capable of being used to make photographic emulsion (silver nitrate) than a US One Dollar Silver Certificate ( if they still made such things) That is why it is such a hoot to watch the savants at “Factcheck” solemnly documenting the “Authenticity” of a piece of paper that has no importance whatsoever other than the accuracy of the information it conveys. And that is why people are confused (perhaps intentionally) by the difference between these two types of document.
A computer database will print out whatever whoever last edited it says to print out. The only reason that the information on such a document is worth anything more than the paper it’s printed on, is partially because of the paper it’s printed on. Like money, certificates from clerk’s offices are almost always printed on specially prepared and jealously guarded forms.
I was once trying to adjust the printing format of a marriage license form in a Clerk’s office in North Carolina, and as I fed form after form through the printer I saw the clerk standing there, catching each form and grinding her teeth. I asked her why? She informed me that not only did the forms cost about $3 dollars apiece, more importantly, blank ones sold in New York for about $400 and they were sequentially ordered and she had to account for each one.
( with a properly filled out North Carolina Marriage Certificate, you too can be a US citizen)
So – Is Obamas posted Database Printout Birth Certificate “Authentic?’ I have no doubt whatsoever that it was printed on the proper certificate form from the proper Hawaiian Authority—and that’s about all that “Checking it for Authenticity” can determine.
The other, and far more important reason the database certificate has any value is that the Full Faith and Credit of the Honolulu Clerk’s Office stands behind it, The way that they do this is by actually keeping and archiving original documents or at least the actual photographic or computer scanned copy of the original document. Usually both. From the way the Clerk responded when the president of CNN claimed that the original documents had been destroyed by her office in 2001, after they were entered in the database, it sounds as if she still has the original filed copy. And to say she has good reason to be peeved with someone who casually accuses her of destroying original documents doesn’t begin to cover it. Her job consists primarily of standing liable ( and I do mean monetarily) for the accuracy of the information she places before the public. The only reason she can stand “Good” for the accuracy of that information is that she maintains archival photographs or scans of, or actual original copies of the filed documents themselves.
This means that she can absolutely check the original document and verify under oath that the database generated copy contains the same information as the original.
Which She has done.
Which is great as far as it goes
What she is forbidden to do, in the case of “Sealed “ documents, is divulge any of the other information contained in the original document, that is, any information not available from the database. These are such things as Doctor’s name/signature, Hospital, religion ( in some older birth certificates in some states) etc. Thus, my thought that the” Archival Birth Certificate” ( let’s call it by it’s correct name, rather than “Long Form”) must in fact confirm that Obama’s Place of birth, is in fact recorded as Honolulu, as is indicated by the “Database Birth Certificate” ( the so called “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on the internet) And that led me to speculate that there might be some other inconvenient truth revealed by the Archived Certificate. Having read your theory about Obama holding off it’s release as a way of discrediting the challenge of eligibility on grounds of dual citizenship, I believe you have the correct answer. I just hope the confusion can be cleared up in time to raise this point before “Birthers” are laughed out of court.
What I have tried to convey is that it really doesn’t require a vast conspiracy to account for a difference between the Database Certificate (Fiat information- to borrow a monetary term) Vs the Archival Birth Certificate ( Real information) All it would take is an alteration of the database for any of a number of reasons, not the most likely of which, but still possible, the intervention of a friendly hacker- or one confederate in the clerk’s office. However, the Clerk has stood liable for the accuracy of the database, so any embarrassment for Obama would have to come from the non-disclosed information of the Archival Birth Certificate.
More likely, you have the correct scenario, and it needs to be broadcast.
August 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Leo, I know you’re trying to disassociate NBC requirements from the birth certificate issue, but WND has posted what appears to be a copy of Obama’s authentic Kenyan B.C. ,which Orly Taitz has received and is asking to have the court verify to enter as evidence in a court case seeking proof of eligibility.
If this is for real what do you think the courts will do about it?
[Ed. If it's real they will make believe it doesn't exist.]
August 3, 2009 at 6:54 PM
In case anyone is interested this is where WND has a picture of that Kenya birth certificate. Keep up the good work Leo. So many people now know what a natural born citizen is. Thanks.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
August 3, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Polarik has already determined it’s fake. He’s posting at freerepublic. Had me going for a little while. Sorry about that.
[Ed. Has given an opinion - not determined. he never convinced me Obama's COLB was fake so I don't think I'll rely on him for this either.]
August 9, 2009 at 7:36 PM
I agree with you Leo. However, if/when the real, long form BC is revealed, (showing that BHO’s dad was a British citizen) wouldn’t it further drive home the point that BHO is NOT eligible to be POTUS? There is no mistake, even by BHO’s own admission, his father was not born on U.S. soil and was a British citizen. I feel that WND (and others) asking to see the long form BC is not an exercise is futility. It doesn’t make sense that the White House Obot staff/One Worlders would think that by showing it (to America), will make this go a way. The long form BC is going to show “who da baby daddy” is & where he’s from! To me, BHO is damned if he reveals it and damned if he doesn’t.
[Ed. I never said asking to see the BC was a futility. But many who argue for that just skip the nbc issue as to his father's British birth. WND has done terrible harm to that issue by their failure to cover it properly.]
August 14, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Leo,
Shame on you….quit attacking Orly and help her. We can’t afford to have divided efforts at this point. If you don’t agree with her, then at the very least don’t attack her.
[Ed. see my comment to a reader below. I attacked the pleadings. I also defended her against personal attacks by David Schuster at MSNBC. It isn't personal, I just call them as I see them. We don't want to praise screw ups. I am not a psychofant like many Obama supporters. You don't want to just blindly praise people because you believe in the end. The means must be justified as well as the ends.]
She has lived in a Communistic country, she understands what is happening and she also knows what it is like to live in this type of government. I believe this is where her passion comes from. I just wish we all valued our freedom as much as she does.
I read what you said about her when she brought military people into her cases. I do understand what you were saying, however, would you have us be taken over? Major Cook is willing to put his life on the line overseas and now even here at home….what a service to his country.
I find it very frustrating that I as an American Citizen have no right to sue for this information. So because of this, we have to rely on those that court would consider to have right.
I followed your case and was pulling for you and prayed for your safety the whole time. So, I prevail upon youself, to help Orly and if you can’t help, then please don’t attack her…leave her alone. Don’t you think she has enough of that? Don’t we all want the same thing?
August 15, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Leo, I was pleased to hear you mention “Right of Abode” during your interview with Ken on Plains Radio on August 13, 2009. Right of Abode is crucial to your argument that Obama as a British subject had the right to live and work in the United Kingdom. If Obama had been born after 1961 the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 would have made Obama subject to immigration control in the United kingdom.
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist you in the sterling work you are preforming for us. Best wishes Duncan
August 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM
[Ed. I don't believe in litigation for the sake of litigation. You don't know what's gone on behind the scenes here. If a case comes my way which I believe has a chance on the merits and which I find to be Constitutionally PROPER, I would enter the system again. I don't believe in filing suits just to see my name appear in the media. So far I have not encountered a plaintiff I feel I could actually win a case for on any issue relevant to this. I won't waste people's time or the Court's time with frivolous suits. All of the eligibility suits now pending will be dismissed since Quo Warranto, impeachment, or mental/physical handicap are the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed.
But thank you so much for the benefit of the doubt. Not.]
I am curious. What does it take to be such a case and get around all this “standing” nonsense the courts use to deny hearing the case?
I would like to hear more detail on exactly what an attorney would love to have in order to file such a case that they feel they know would get past all the barriers the courts are using to dismiss these cases?
Perhaps if we had some prime examples of what is needed here then maybe someone that fits the ideal situation would step forward to become a plantiff?
September 9, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Leo, Orly Taitz has succeeded to have Judge Carter to hear the case on the merits! What do you think? More on Orly Taitz site.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?m=200909
**********MEDIA ALERT**********
Some great news folks….we may be getting our day in court!!! Last Friday at the last minute the DOJ tried to strong arm the court into dismissing Dr. Orly Taitz case against the FRAUD for being ineligible….fortunately we may have found a Judge who is used to living and playing by the rules and the laws written in our Constitution…..the dates are contingent….but it looks like the Judge wants to hear the case on its merits…..something NO other Judge has done….it is a wait and see game still but one step closer to forcing the documents that this corrupt and evil administration is paying BIG BUCKS to keep concealed….please pass this to everyone you know!!! Jackie:)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109242
A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.
In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.
The Give Us Liberty blog is blogging from the courtroom. At 9:26 AM there was no visible media turnout for this hearing as in no SatCam uplink trucks.
At 10:02 Justice Carter noting the packed courtroom and overflow crowd waiting in the hallways has ordered a change to a larger courtroom and has taken a 2 hour recess to accommodate the transfer of officers of the court and spectators.
The estimated age range of those present is 18 to 80 — 70% Men — 30% Women — age 60+ seems to be the majority.
Attorney Orly Taitz appeared relaxed — calm cool and collected.
Justice Carter recessed the court at 12.30 pst 9/8/09 — his rulings:
10/5/09 Defense Motion to Dismiss (MTD) to be heard — Judge Carter indicated only a very strong compelling reason would move him to dismiss at this point. He will review the defense’s 9/4/09 MTD. He wants to hear the case on it’s merits. Discovery to be ordered 10/5/09 if Motion to Dismiss is thrown out.
1/11/10 Pre Trial Set — procedural for other motions, depositions, scheduling, etc
1/26/10 Trial Date Set — earliest available date for Justice Carter.