US Government Ruling From 1885 by Secretary of State Thomas Bayard Proves Chester Arthur’s British Birth Was Kept From Public.

Bayardquote

 

Thomas F. Bayard was a US Senator from Delaware between 1869 and 1885, which includes the Chester Arthur administration.  From 1885 to 1889, Bayard was Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland.  This is the same Bayard mentioned in Hinman’s book on Chester Arthur.  Hinman wrote to Bayard and Bayard’s response has been erroneously cited by those who support Obama’s eligibility.  For some reason I have yet to comprehend, they argue Bayard was aware of Chester Arthur having been born a British subject.

But nothing in Bayard’s letter to Hinman supports that position.

Regardless, due to a recent find by the UNDEAD REVOLUTION research team, this issue has been settled once and for all.

The letter written by Bayard to Hinman is from 1884, while Chester was still President.  But in 1885, as Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland, Bayard made an official ruling which firmly established his position as to the citizenship of persons born on US soil to foreign parents: they were not considered to be US citizens.

The evidence comes from the August 23, 1894, issue of The Nation magazine which states:

In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ‘subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.

Here we have an official US State Department ruling from 1885 that people born in the US of foreign parentage are subject to foreign powers and not considered US citizens.

This provides proof positive Bayard had no idea whatsoever that, at the time of President Arthur’s birth, father William was not a US citizen.

It’s important we note Bayard’s concern that the German subject was, “on his birth subject to a foreign power“.  That’s the key.  “On his birth”, Chester Arthur was born subject to a foreign power.  “On his birth”, Barack Obama was born subject to a foreign power.  Also, this official ruling concerned only the issue of whether the person was a “citizen” of the US, never mind “natural born”.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution  requires that the President be a natural born citizen.  The word “born” refers to the status of the President at the time of his birth, not any other time.  Barack Obama and Chester Arthur were born to fathers who were not US citizens at the time each was born.  Therefore, neither Obama nor Arthur should legally be President under the Constitution.

The Nation article appears below in full for your review.

View this document on Scribd

82 Responses to “US Government Ruling From 1885 by Secretary of State Thomas Bayard Proves Chester Arthur’s British Birth Was Kept From Public.”

  1. Leo,
    What other proof do they need? I would guess that the Obama minions would not believe it if there was film of Obama and Bin Laden chumming around in a cave while holding up a copy of yesterday’s paper.

  2. This is the Mother of all rsearch…what a find…..Leo, Why or what has this group choosing the unique name they have???? Do you know?

    Finally, have you any opinion of what might transpire with the California case with Taitz and Kreep….aside from the apparent friction bbetween the tw lawyers????

    Thanks for your educated guess in advance…

    Yu da man!

  3. Tony Stark Says:

    That’s a great find. Keep up with the discoveries of inconvenient truths for Obama’s ostriches who just bury their heads and refuse to accept the fact that their man is not eligible to be POTUS.

  4. I count myself, among many, many others, grateful and beholding to those ( Leo and others) scouring the archives of history and bringing it’s truths into the light for all to see!
    I fail to see how all of this can be so blatantly ignored by so many elected and powerful people…whatever the out come, at least there will be a clear record of the power and integrity of this Nations Fore-Fathers and their inspiration and work in The Constitution of this United States of America!
    It will all stand as a testimony to the wickedness and deceitfulness of those who choose to ignore this dire situation.

    God Bless you Leo and all those others, working so hard.

  5. Whistleblower Says:

    Here’s our main problem. We lack an assertive citizenry.

    Today I asked a guy I know (he voted for Obama) if we found that Obama wasn’t even a citizen of the U.S., would he still want him to hold the Office of President. His response was “Yes”.

    I fear that we are in worse shape than we could have ever imagined.

    Given the MSM response to “Birthers” (I refuse “dualers” so as to not be divided), I find the following quote to be most appropriate.

    “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” —C.S. Lewis

  6. Dang it, Leo, you made a mistake when you said “he was on his birth . . . not ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.

    By throwing in the extra “not” you tripped me up there at first. Two wrongs may not make a right, but two negatives do make a positive.

    [Ed. Got it, corrected. Thanks.]

  7. Also, while Bayard’s decision certainly supports the view that Obama is not a natural born citizen, it seems a stretch to imply that today the German-fathered child would have no claim at all to citizenship.

  8. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Leo,

    I just watched a video from the scene of Orly’s CA case. In this video a Representitive from the state of MO stated that it is common practice for states in the case of adoption to list the adoptive parents as the true birth parents on the subsequent birth certificate. I found this statement to be curious. Any legal thoughts on this? Why would Orly find it important to get this mentioned? BTW in the video Orly once again used your argument of 2 US citizen parents to be qualified for POTUS. Does her court case support this argument?

  9. Leo,

    The text below is from the opinion in Craig v. United States issued on August 5, 2009:

    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native.”

    The finding states that the rights of citizenship of the native born derives from Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment which states:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

    The Constitution (including Amendments) does not contain the word “native” or “native born”. Why were the words “native born” used in the first sentence instead of natural born?

    The judges state that “the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment”. It is clear that the judges recognize that native born citizens, naturalized citizens and natural born citizens have the same rights.

    It is also clear that the judges believe that a native born person meeting the jurisdiction requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment is a native born citizen as stated in their starting premise comparing the rights of native born citizens to naturalized citizens. A native born person is not necessarily a citizen. A native born citizen is a natural born citizen, eligible to be President!

    Jurisdiction as used in the Fourteenth Amendment means exactly what the framers stated and Obama was not born under the jurisdiction of the United States and was not a citizen thereof “at birth”. This is undisputed by Obama as stated on his website.

    Since the Fourteenth Amendment does not contain the word “natural” or the words “natural born”, The Fourteenth Amendment cannot be used, however the words are constructed, to assign natural born citizenship to Obama. The opinion rendered by Chief Justice John Marshal in the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison stated:

    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible…”

    What difference exists between a native born person, deriving their right of citizenship from Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a natural born citizen eligible to be President?

    None what so ever!

    A person born in the United States, under the jurisdiction thereof, is a native born citizen and also a natural born citizen. Conversely, a person born in the United States, not under the jurisdiction thereof, is not a citizen, and can never be declared a natural born citizen, but may elect to become a naturalized citizen at the age of majority.

    In the case of Obama’s birth there is no question, if he was born in Hawaii, that he was “native born” having been born in the United States to an American citizen mother. However, Obama’s father was a citizen of the United Kingdom. Therefore, Obama was not a citizen at the time of his birth. What would have made Obama a citizen and thereby a natural born citizen when he was born?

    There is no answer but that Obama’s father would also have had to be a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. It is undisputed that Obama’s father was never a citizen of the United States.!

    I spent over an hour with the campaign chairman of my State Representative in an effort to determine why my Representative did not stand up and object to Obama’s eligibility to serve as President. The campaign chairman stated that he had spent some time with the Representative discussing Obama’s eligibility and the Representative was reluctant to bring up the issue until there was a court case to that effect.

    I believe that is the position of other members of Congress which has kept them mute on the subject.

    The opinion in Craig destroys any attempts by Obama supporters to utilize the Fourteenth Amendment to declare Obama a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as President.

    The Fourteenth Amendment, based on the original intent of the word jurisdiction, conveys citizenship to any person born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States. No person born on US soil with any allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty is a citizen of the United States at birth, but may become a naturalized citizen at the age of majority upon application and taking the required naturalization oath.

    The Rosetta Stone defining a natural born citizen is embedded in the construction of the Fourteenth Amendment by the word jurisdiction in that the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey citizenship to any person born in the United States unless both parents are citizens of the United States.

    A “natural born citizen” is the class of citizenship given to all persons born in the United States meeting the conditions specified in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution at their birth. No person born in the United States failing to meet the Constitution’s requirements specified in the Fourteenth Amendment can be any type citizen other than naturalized, and only then at the age of majority by taking the naturalization oath.

    Obama was a citizen of the UK at birth as he states. He still remains so. And perhaps Kenyan. Obama supporters may claim that the Supreme Court has never defined “natural born” citizen. It is not necessary. Obama is not even a citizen.

    The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment provides the following:
    All persons born in the United States under the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. These citizens are also natural born citizens, as both parents were citizens at birth and no statue is required, or has ever been required, to define their citizenship.

    No person born in the United States, not under the jurisdiction thereof, may be granted “birthright” citizenship. Those persons may later become naturalized citizens by following the appropriate United States statues.

  10. Presumably the blogger “Dr. Conspiracy” will now change his name to “Dr. Fabricator”???

    He was one of the big “people knew about Arthur” pushers in trying to claim that Obama need not show that he is eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

  11. This is a great find Leo. This blog allows the work that people in the late 1800’s did not have access too (e.g. a way to effective research and cross search information in a timely fashion) to uncover the truth even though evil is on the throne. Well done. We will share with others and when I have time to read the research given in the part series, I will do so.

    Sometimes you remind me of the male version of Julia Roberts in the movie, The Pelican Brief. LOL!

  12. Mitchell: For over 1.5 years on Texas Darlin bloggers dug into Obama’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro; the thinking by some, is that the “real” birth certificate is the one reissued which will list Lolo as Dad, and that is what is on file in Honolulu. Ask yourself, does Obama look Indonesian?
    Check out this … it’s pretty weird
    http://obambi.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/obamaindian.jpg?w=459&h=358
    http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/barack-obama-totally-looks-like-ilham-anas.jpg?w=426&h=288

    Anyway, fun as that may be, I don’t get into “who da baby daddy” because it goes nowhere. Obama’s COLB will just be proven forged, which we already know to be the case!

    A bot on craigslist wopo says the Obama-lawyer motion was filed last week and set for hearing on 10/5/09 at that time. Nothing out of the ordinary about the Carter decision. Do you agree?

  13. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    jtx,

    You misunderstand, my fellow patriot;[Ed. Snip. No PR for it allowed]… is true to his agenda, as he supports the conspiracy to overthrow the republic, and is an expert in arguments to conceal this crime…

  14. Leo,

    Will you consider filing an Amicis Brief in Orly’s case arguing against the motion to dismiss? You need to contact Orly for more information. This not a solicitation but simply a request to fellow a birther with legal expertise to offer to another the cause of greater good.

    [Ed. See my forthcoming blog.]

  15. Keep up the good work
    we need to stop Obama’s socialist agenda somehow.
    blog that ties all the socialist ties of obama
    http://newzeal.blogspot.com/

  16. Starbeau—said”No person born on US soil with any allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty is a citizen of the United States at birth, but may become a naturalized citizen at the age of majority upon application and taking the required naturalization oath.”

    wish it was true

    but can you show anyone being naturalized-having been born here?

  17. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/captain-connie-rhodes-to-war/

    I note that in the Rhodes vs. MacDonald action filed by Orly on Friday, she specifically mentions the British and Kenyan citizenship issues, and corrects errors that Leo pointed out in the Cook filings in FL….

    She is listening; Leo is guiding…great synergy for the nation!

  18. No idea if this about McCain is useful or has been covered.
    Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al
    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/39/

    That link was in: “Obama’s ‘Long Form’ Shows Up”
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/obamas_long_form_shows_up.html

  19. Shawn Says:

    September 9, 2009 at 2:28 pm
    This is the Mother of all rsearch…what a find…..Leo, Why or what has this group choosing the unique name they have???? Do you know?

    Finally, have you any opinion of what might transpire with the California case with Taitz and Kreep….aside from the apparent friction bbetween the tw lawyers????

    Thanks for your educated guess in advance…

    Yu da man!

    ====
    The group behind the Undead Revolution moniker does not appear to particularly want any of its members in the “limelight” but wants the research into old archives to speak for itself. They’ve been in touch with people who are connected to the ZAPEM blog and there was some review of “rough draft” sections that went into this labor of (Constitutional) love.

    I think it is critically important that the pending case which now has found a judge professing a willingness to deal with the merits plead all the relevant primary and “alternative” theories of the case. And that would include a review of whether the FactCheck research “excerpt” which was republished verbatim in the Obama-controlled website FightTheSmears constituted an “admission against interest” on the topic of dual citizenship, and therefore necessitates a ruling about the concept of dual citizenship being either inimical to, or compatible with, a proper legal interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen clause.

    I would say “inimical” — most emphatically. But it’s important that there not be a ruling that creates BAD LAW and which conflates 14th Amendment misinterpretation (overlooking the “subject to jurisdiction” clause meaning 100% “subject to” and not 50% dually “subject to”) and “foggy thinking” induced by Wong Kim Ark’s dicta with a clause found only in the original 1789 document. The clause in the Constitution had its very own unique meaning and no “antics” of attempted interpretation (S.Res. 511) conducted legislatively or otherwise should be allowed to go unchallenged.

    It bothers me greatly to find that one of the lawyers (Gary Kreep) on the case pending before Judge Carter wants to confine the court’s attention solely to the long form birth certificate, and that that is one of his areas of critical difference with Orly Taitz. Such a narrow focus would have the obvious detrimental outcome of a finding that “born on soil” (which production of the long form certificate is likely to find at the end of the day) equates to “natural born” and that is plainly not what the Framers believed.

  20. How could the DOJ, which is primarily a prosicutorial office be brought in to defend the suit against BHO?
    They are there to protect and defend the constitution. It is the DOJ that has the responsibility to investigate and prosecute those that are violating the constitution. It appears they are on the wrong side of the case??!!??
    Isn’t it like the State Attorney 0ffice defending the criminal?

    [Ed. The AG is also the attorney for the POTUS when it comes to official actions of the POTUS. I will have more on this later.]

  21. Leo , I am no laywer and sometimes the legal stuff is over my head, but can you explain why the DOJ is representing the unsurper in Orly’s case.
    Why did the judge not demand the Obama hire his own lawyers. If you don’t have time to anwer I totally understand. Keep up the great work, many people are praying that you jump back in!!!!

    [Ed. More on this later.]

  22. Jimmy The C Says:

    I came accross this site during my many wanderings while surfing.
    http://rationalliberty.com/index.php/2009/09/09/a-british-citizen-as-president-of-the-united-states/
    It’s a pretty easy read and seems to very succinctly explain why Obama is still a British citizen. Keep the pressure on.
    Jim

    [Ed. The analysis there is faulty. Obama is NOT a “British Overseas Citizen”. This will be discussed in a forthcoming report. BOC is not correct. The proper reading of the statutes (and this is corroborated by the UK Government) does not make Obama a BOC. If that were the case then all of the native Kenyans would also be BOC. The problems are coming from improper understanding as to interpretation of the BNA 1981 and applicable repeals. I have this locked down and will publish it soon.]

  23. Jimmy The C Says:

    Hi Leo,
    I find this interesting. On September 16, 2008 an Elector from California sued to stop McCain because he was not a Natural Born Citizen. http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/
    The Judge dismissed the case and said among other things “therefore judicial review – if any – should occur only after the Electoral and Congressional process have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998)”
    Since no challenge came from the Electors nor Congress (at least where Obama is concerned) shouldn’t the Judicial review be warranted and within the Constitution?

  24. So lets say just hypothetically this goes to court… Do you think his argument could be that the American people knowingly voted for him?

    [Ed. That makes no legal difference whatsoever. The people don’t interpret the Constitution, the judicial branch does.]

  25. [Ed. The analysis there is faulty. Obama is NOT a “British Overseas Citizen”. This will be discussed in a forthcoming report. BOC is not correct. The proper reading of the statutes (and this is corroborated by the UK Government) does not make Obama a BOC. If that were the case then all of the native Kenyans would also be BOC. The problems are coming from improper understanding as to interpretation of the BNA 1981 and applicable repeals. I have this locked down and will publish it soon.]

    We are anxiously awaiting the upcoming post!
    Thanks so much for all your info!!!

  26. Leo, please read this article posted by J.B. Williams.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

    [Ed. Good article… have at it readers.]

  27. A writer at canadafreepress has an article with some stunning information, (at least to me), regarding the eligibility issue.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

    [Ed. Good article. Good points made.]

  28. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

    This JB Williams has in hand 2 documents prepared by the DNC, one never sent to the 50 states, which says Obama is constitutionally eligible, the other which does not say this, but which was sent to the 50 states; each signed by the same parties and same notary on the same day…

    This is proof of a conspiracy to defraud the voters…

  29. truthbetold11 Says:

    now we need about 250 million people to read this

  30. Voco Indubium Says:

    Att.: Jimmy The C Says: September 10, 2009 at 9:26 am

    RE: “http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/ The Judge dismissed the case and said among other things “therefore judicial review – if any – should occur only after the Electoral and Congressional process have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998)”

    Since no challenge came from the Electors nor Congress (at least where Obama is concerned) shouldn’t the Judicial review be warranted and within the Constitution? ”

    I came to the very same critical question. So, to tie this in with the current Taitz & Kreep case: The defense presented a very feeble argument why Keyes should not have Standing (saying something to the effect that Keyes did not have a statistical probability to win). A decent judge, if there are any, would reject such argument.

    So if the Standing obstacle is removed, and the judge agrees with the above quoted opinion of his colleague, the case could be tried on merit?

  31. Leo, please read this: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

    This is from the article:

    “The Implications

    Please, allow me to connect the dots here…

    * The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one.
    * One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
    * The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of President is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama President. ”

    You’ll just have to read this. It’s wild. Two different documents with missing legal language about the constitution sent out to the states.

  32. Leo, they sent a messed up document out to the states. It’s missing the legal language that it was supposed to have. I think this is serious. FR is talking about it too. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335800/posts

  33. Jimmy the C wrote:

    “On September 16, 2008 an Elector from California sued to stop McCain because he was not a Natural Born Citizen. http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/
    The Judge dismissed the case and said among other things “therefore judicial review – if any – should occur only after the Electoral and Congressional process have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998)”
    Since no challenge came from the Electors nor Congress (at least where Obama is concerned) shouldn’t the Judicial review be warranted and within the Constitution?”

    Great find, JC! Non-lawyer type here, but that seems like it would be important.

  34. I read this today Leo, and thought of you.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

    the omission is interesting.

  35. Apocalyptic Says:

    Hi Leo,

    I don’t know what to make of this, but if legitimate, it could be explosive. Supposedly two official Democratic Certifications of Nomination were created after the Democratic Convention back in August 2008, but only one of them was sent to the 50 states–the one that does not say that the candidates are constitutionally qualified to serve (as the other one does). Both were supposedly signed (notary, etc.) on the same day. If this is true, it would possibly indicate fraud on the part of the Democratic Party. The web site I saw this at (which includes copies of the Democratic and Republican certifications) is here:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

    What do you think of this? Is this worth following up?

    [Ed. Of course it’s worth following up. Why did they drop the Constitutional endorsement? It is evidence they did not want to be liable.]

  36. Shouldn’t the DOJ be the ones prosecuting Obama in our Constitutional defense, instead of defending him from scrutiny as to his Constitutional infringements?
    This whole Ofraud world is flipped upside down.

    [Ed. Exactly…]

  37. So now the Secretary of State and, presumably the State Department rules and regulations concerning who is a citizen at birth MATTERS on this issue, huh? LOL!!

    [Ed. You’re missing the point. The Bayard decision shows that in 1885 – a year after Chester Arthur was President – the State department’s official position would have been that Chester Arthur was – at the time of his birth – subject to a foreign power and therefore not eligible to be President. This is 13 years before Wong Kim Ark was decided. People have been wrongly insisting the public knew about Chester Arthur’s British birth. Bayard’s official State Department actions along with the law review article by George Collins prove that the public had no idea President Arthur was British at birth and therefore not eligible to be POTUS.

    That is the whole point… Chester Arthur established no historical or legal precedent for Obama to be POTUS. The public simply had no idea who Arthur was since he lied and successfully concealed his British birth.]

    Sadly for you the USSC did not agree with this apparently arbitrary ruling, so of what real value is this old and not verifiable account from more than a hundred years ago?

    It bears very little relevance, either to 1961 or today, except perhaps to add the former SOS to the list of “birthers” (if he were alive today, of course).

    [Ed. Dualers – Bayard would have been a DUALER, not a birther.]

  38. beyond baffled Says:

    Leo,

    Can you post this link to the Patriot’s Heart Network? I hope that everyone can listen to what is happening in the Grand Jury Investigation. There is some great (and disturbing) history being presented here.

    Thanks in advance.

    http://www.riseupforamerica.com/crimeofthecentury.html

  39. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    This is off the subject of Chester Auther, but I wish to report a meeting I just came from.

    Over fifty people met at a citizen’s home in my city. They were the organizers for four different organizations, The T.E.A. Party, the 912 Project, and two others. Everyone pledged to cooperate and work together. They are holding a joint “Freedom Fest” this Saturday to commemorate how we all felt the day after 9/11, when the twin towers fell. Plans were also made to travel to our state capitol on Sunday and protest Obamacare.

    I was humbled to be in such a crowd. Rich and poor, Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian. Titles didn’t matter. There was this quiet determination to educate the public on what our founding fathers gave to us.

    Liberty is not dead, folks. The Constitution still lives. The socialist (and that is what they are) may hold power today, but the next election cycle is just around the corner.

    All around the country, people are waking up to what is happening in Washington, D.C. Work hard in your community. It will never be over as long as we keep fighting. “It is a strong wind that blows against the empire”. (Grace Slick, Jefferson Airplane)

  40. Very interesting read….I’m not sure that this is as important as they claim…

    Canada Free Press article:
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

  41. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/captain-rhodes-to-get-emergency-stay-hearing-today-at-2-pm/

    Captain Connie Rhodes gets Emergency Stay Hearing in GA Federal Court, Friday 2pm…represented by Orly Taitz, will request defense of constitutional rights to refuse a pretender’s claim to the CIC position…

  42. If I were born in United States of America, automatically I will be one of the citizen. Is it like that?

    [Ed. Not automatically… according to the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case, your parents would have to be permanently domiciled in the US when you were born.]

  43. http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/judge-carter-orders-motion-for-rogatory-discovery-to-be-heard/
    Resistnet and other sites had reported expedited discovery; this morning confirmed no expedited discovery has been granted in the principle action.

  44. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Bho boo–Thanks for the answer. I can see where a BC would be changed in the case of a mother who gave her child up for adoption to protect her privacy rights, but BHO’s mother never gave away her parental rights and BHO was old enough at the time of the adoption to know who his biological father was. I mean Sr. and Stanley Anne were married (hardly a confidential secret). I do however, like you believe that the posted HI COLB is fishy at best. I really think that the people behind this have totally underestimated the intelligence and resolve of the American people. Leo and the people who post on this blog are doing the ‘leg work’ that should have been done by the MSM.

  45. Leo,
    Regarding the explosive find by JB Williams (assuming they are not forged documents) as posted here several times today:

    Canada Free Press article:
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

    My comments are:

    The DNC is not President Obama.
    Can the DNC be sued, leaving Obama totally out of it (if possible), based on their fradulent actions? Possibly forcing the DNC into discovery, followed by trial, might bring a much higher visibility of the Constitutional crisis to the general public. It might be hard to bury such a suit.

    Standing might be easier to achieve against the DNC. They might be sued in a more favorable lower court. Can they be sued for violations of the Federal Election Laws?

    Could your original lawsuit in NJ be modified and refiled against the DNC?

    [Ed. No, it was the NJ SOS who swore to uphold the Constitution. As for this story by JB Williams, have they locked down on what was sent to each state in 2000 and 20004? That is important.]

  46. [Ed. Not automatically… according to the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case, your parents would have to be permanently domiciled in the US when you were born.]

    Then how do we have so-called “anchor babies”?

    [Ed. The Supreme Court hasn’t made a ruling on anchor babies yet. They have managed to avoid the issue. Even the State Department recognizes that the issue is not settled law if you read their comments carefully.]

  47. Re the nomination conspiracy of the DNC as revealed by canadafreepress, IMO Obama must be persuaded or forced to resign to spare the United States civil strife. Then he and his family should be flown in the dead of night to Kenya or Indonesia, in both of which Obama may still be a citizen.

    But Nancy Pelosi must not get off so easy. She should be tried for treason and sentenced accordingly.

  48. Whistleblower Says:

    When this is all said and done, we will have three classes of people in the U.S.

    1. Birthers. [Ed. What about Dualers?]
    2. Those that were unaware.
    3. Those that actively attacked and mocked the birthers.

    If the birthers are wrong, they will continue to be mocked. They will hide their heads in shame.

    Those that were unaware, will likely continue to be unaware; no matter the outcome.

    However, if it turns out that the birthers were correct, those that were presented with the information, and continued to mock the birthers, will be known as traitors to the United States of America.

  49. Apocalyptic :

    Actually the 2 certifications being different is incorporated as part of the Kerchner action by attorney Apuzzo. See (on the Apuzzo site) DOC 3 para 89 – 91 and ENDNOTE 16.

  50. Whistleblower Says:

    September 11, 2009 at 11:53 am
    When this is all said and done, we will have three classes of people in the U.S.

    1. Birthers. [Ed. What about Dualers?]
    2. Those that were unaware.
    3. Those that actively attacked and mocked the birthers.
    ***********************************************
    3. “Afterbirther” – One who pursues or “goes after birthers” on the Internet in an effort to rebutt their theory.

  51. This is for Markcon

    Response for Markcon

    Markcon I do not. That of course does not mean that there have not been many.

    But here is the real problem. Who makes the decision as to your citizenship status for you to vote or perform any function requiring you to be a citizen, or perhaps a natural born citizen of the United States.

    Any one in Texas can get a Voter Registration card simply by downloading one from the County, check they are a citizen and then drive on. It does state you must be a citizen and if you give false information it is perjury, and a crime under state and federal law.

    However, suppose you were born in Laredo and your parents were Mexican citizens. Mom had driven across the Rio Grande to buy some bread and gas and you were born in the hospital in Laredo. You have a “Certificate of Live Birth” stating all the particulars about your birth. After you were born, your mother took you back home to Mexico, along with your birth certificate and you stayed there until you were17 years old and came to the United States and settled down. When you turned 18, someone said you could vote, but you needed a voter registration card.

    So you get a “Texas Voter Registration Application” and began to fill it out and your concerned about the question, “Are you a United States Citizen?”, because if you check “No”, it says do not complete this form.

    You need to find out if you are citizen of the United States.

    Who do you ask?

    I called my local Voter Registrar and posed the question using the above example. The young lady on the other end said if you were born in Laredo, you were a citizen. I brought up the Fourteenth Amendment. She then referred me to the Office of the Secretary of State.

    I called the Office of the Secretary of State in Austin and posed the same question again to the lady answering the phone. Got the same answer so I raised the Fourteenth Amendment again and I was transferred to another person and the bottom line was, “Your a citizen”.

    We discussed that a few minutes and I asked her how that could be challenged. The SOS’s office said there were forms in each county where a challenge could be made. She said that if an official challenge is made, there will be a court “*hearing” date set and the challenged person must attend the hearing. She then stated that if the challenged person testifies under oath that they are a citizen, case over, hearing closed.

    * A hearing in Texas is a peculiar kind of legal device specified by the Legislature (Ref. GA 0316 of which I am very familar). It may be held in a “Justice Court” presided over by a Justice of the Peace which is not a court of record. I have not been able to close the loop for the type of hearing mentioned by the SOS office, nor does the county Voting Registrars personnel know of such a form. I have requested a return call from the Registrar which has not been received.

    The Fourteenth Amendment is very clearly written and the meaning of the word jurisdiction contained in the first sentence of the amendment is specifically defined by the framers as to what they meant when they wrote the words. It has also been the subject of a ruling in 1873 by the Attorney General stating that jurisdiction means total, geographical as well as political. Not having both, the jurisdiction is of limited extent and such a child is not a citizen at birth.

    What happens beyond birth depends on the child, born on US soil with limited jurisdiction. The child is clearly not a citizen at birth and nothing can be done by any court or congress to ex post facto them to citizen or NBC status.

    Somehow, it has become entrenched that the Fourteenth Amendment reads, “All persons born in the United States are citizens.

    Getting the Supreme Court to rule on provisions and Amendments to the Constitution based on what the provisions meant at the time they were written is our great challenge if this Republic is to survive.

    No ruling from the court is required. It requires four justices to concur to listen to a case and if you don’t get four, it will not be heard and they don’t even have to tell you why!

  52. Canada Free Press is the front for Douglas Haggman, Founder of Northeast Intelligence Network, or “NEIN,” for “no” in German. “CFP” intentionally stole work produced on my blog, without accreditation, and are reaping the notoriety for this usurpation. My ire vests not in this theft of intellectual property but rather, in the knowledge that this unscrupulous group will unjustly benefit from the caliber of the work, my work. And people will tend to credit other tripe that comes out of this group, assuming it has any intrinsic value whatsoever, which it does not.

    Way back in December 2008, Justin Riggs was contacting state elections officials all over the country to obtain Certifications of Nominations. HI sent back both the DNC and RNC Certifications, which he posted, along with the cover letter from elections officials. A blogger who has helped me on several projects, including distributing the memorandum I wrote trying to resolve the issue of standing confronted by Plaintiffs in federal court, by proposing military Plaintiffs who could survive a Motion to Dismiss; thought I might be interested in Justin’s work and emailed the link. Already familiar with the SC Certification, s soon as I saw the HI Certification, I noticed the extra line regarding BO’s Constitutional qualification. Then, I looked at the cover letter from HI elections officials; this contained a cite to Hawaiian Revised Statutes. I checked with Justin; no, he hadn’t cited this law to obtain the Certifications. So, I looked up the law. And sure enough, this was the requirement that party officials must Certify the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (I also noticed there was no “Received” stamp on the Certification from HI, as well as the signature anomaly. But none of these details was material to creating any cause of action that could halt the Congressional ratification of the EC vote; or, after such ratification, that could prompt Congress to initiate Impeachment proceedings.)

    You will find these documents posted and/or referenced throughout my blog, beginning last December, and recently highlighted in an article I posted on August 13, “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN, IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS IS un-AMERICAN, TOO.” The distinction is again pointed out in the just published “MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE A’sG.” Notice, CFP did not reveal the provenance of information they just ‘published’ about the Certifications, or provide an explanation as to why it took them so long to ‘find’ this information and realize its significance.
    http://jbjd.wordpress.com

  53. Again
    The JB story…..who has “locked down” the documents ? the DNC?
    Has any action been filed as far as you know?

    Also, in reguard to Orly…It is difficult to tell when reading the court Order whether they are looking into the “Lavender” Kenyan BC[ which appeared to be a fraud from its face] or the “Lucas” Kenynan BC which had the Lucas affadavit. I cant tell which was the BC attached to the motion from August 20th.

    bho boo stated that the order to expedite was not correct.

    Nothing is ever clear !!!!! My instict tells me that the Order is not abundantly clear for a reason !

  54. I’m going to vent here for just one second, because it’s about time somebody said this.

    The most frustrating thing about this entire situation is that many “birthers” and “dualers” are simply not educated enough to make decisions for themselves. Instead, they simply latch on to the Messiah of the day – whether it be Orly, or Leo, or Canada Free Press, or whatever. It reminds me of watching a young bloodhound – everytime he gets a sniff of something, he nearly wets himself with excitement.

    [Ed. Hey bro. I don’t appreciate this condescending attitude towards my readers. And I don’t appreciate your putting me in as a flavor “of the day”. Read this blog back to the start and educate yourself as to just how much work has been done for almost a year now including law suits brought. Stop crying and get back to work. There’s NO GLORY to be found in this area. Just work, man. Work.]

    If all of you who posted comments had taken five minutes to research Canada Free Press, or the shoddy story posted there yesterday, you would have seen what a sham it was. That “reporter” didn’t even try to verify his facts. The reason there are two Certs is that Hawaii requires the one with the additional language. No conspiracy. No nothing. But you all act like the day of redemption has come.

    All I’m asking is that you do your due diligence before spouting off. Use your brain. Use your computer. Use some common sense. There’s lots of good, interesting stuff going on – much of it appears on this blog. But you need to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff.

    Allright, I’m done. Back to work. There are truths to be uncovered.

    [Ed. Has anyone posted the verifications used in 2000 and 2004? If they are the same as the ones used in 2008 then there is no issue.]

  55. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583
    The Democratic National Committee, the Chair of the Party convention, the Secretary of the Party, Party offices in each of fifty states, and maybe many, many more, have knowingly and wantonly defrauded the American election system and more than 300 million American citizens.

  56. Whistleblower Says:

    [Ed. What about Dualers?]

    I refuse to accept “dualers” as a separate effort. Be he born with dual allegiance, or be he born with no allegiance; his birth is the origin of controversy.

    Our numbers are limited. We need unity, not division. We must maintain a united front, focused on the restoration and future observance of a constitutional government.

    “Dualers” are a subcategory of the “Birther” movement.

    [Ed. No, birthers is a tag chosen for us. Dualers is a tag chosen by us. Big difference.]

  57. Leo,

    You always like to be evidence based around here. The evidence shows that some of your readers lack critical thinking skills. That’s not condescending, it’s just a statement of fact.

    I have read this blog from day one, and I have a sincere appreciation for what you’ve done. But some of the folks around here worship you like the Obots worship the President – and we don’t want that, do we?

    [Ed. Nobody worships me here. I get called to task all the time by my readers. All the time… I spend alot of energy answering difficult questions and researching articles linked to by my readers. In my opinion, you can’t find another comment section as educational as this anywhere. But I really don’t appreciate your comments, sir. You’re entitled to make them, and I’ve printed them in full but I am not impressed.]

    We want people that think for themselves, and don’t just accept everything we say at face value.

    [Ed. From day one, I’ve told the people – “don’t believe me, verify everything for yourselves.” I don’t often present opinions here, I present legal analysis and law to back it up. If I’m guessing, than I’ll say, “I don’t know the answer, my best guess is…” etc. If you can’t tell that getting people to think for themselves is paramount at this blog, then you’ve not been paying attention.]

    My point is, a TON of energy gets wasted in this cause by people who won’t take five minutes to do a fact-check before they start spamming the blogosphere with useless information.

    Anyhow, since no one else seems to be willing to take the time to figure it out, I can definitely say that the 2000 and 2004 Certs from the D party were the same as they were this year. All you have to do is ask, people.

    [Ed. Can you please provide links to the documents of which you speak above. That would save everybody alot of time and trouble. Please provide a post or links to a previous post which documents your an analysis of documents form 2000 and 2004 which allegedly debunk this theory. Now that is something we could use.]

  58. [Ed. Has anyone posted the verifications used in 2000 and 2004? If they are the same as the ones used in 2008 then there is no issue.]

    This is what needs to be looked out now, and I do agree. If those done then are so different from 2008 in that they are consistent throughout all the states, then something really is fishy!

    Also, how does one go about doing this? How many states to you need to check the records on in 2000 and 2004?

  59. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Yes, I like the “Dualers” handle. I have kept trying to use “NBC-ers”, but it doesn’t have the right ring to it.

    I have been a dualer before. I was a kickass “dueler” for four years on a fencing team. Loved every minute of it.

    “Birther” started as a derisive slur… Dualers it is.

  60. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Charles Kerchner is sueing Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her part in DNC certifications. I know he is delighted with this information coming forth. I will check with a friend at the election board in my state for this info, too.

  61. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Check out Chas. Kerchner’s lawsuit. He names the DNC & Pelosi at paragraphs 85 – 91 on pages 19-20 for failing to vet Obama.

    The honorable judge must really be studying up on everything. His response is now five weeks overdue. I hope he grants standing. CK will prove in court what a great fraud all of this has been.

  62. jurigg, so you’re saying that Constitutional eligibility being only required by Hawaii, is why they removed that line from all the other states’ certifications?

    LOL. Yeah. Right.

  63. [Ed. No, birthers is a tag chosen for us. Dualers is a tag chosen by us. Big difference.]

    That is priceless… : )

  64. Is not a Birther the one,
    Who disregards a foreign father’s son,
    But a Dualer is the one,
    Who holds the smokin’ gun.

  65. @juriggs

    “The reason there are two Certs is that Hawaii requires the one with the additional language.”

    So if the other 49 states don’t require the additional language but don’t care if it is present, why not just make up one document with it included and send that to all the states? Everything has to be signed and notarized twice. There is one special letter that has to be put in the correct envelope with the correct address etc.. It’s just odd to do it the way they did. Apparently the McCain campaign sent out 50 letters with this type of language in it and it was accepted by all the states.

  66. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,

    According to juriggs, “The reason there are two Certs is that Hawaii requires the one with the additional language”……..”I can definitely say that the 2000 and 2004 Certs from the D party were the same as they were this year. All you have to do is ask, people”.

    That is so LOL risible, considering the monumental ‘stone-walling’ that is being rigidly carried out by Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her DNC Party hacks.

    We appear to have touched a raw nerve here. I think that we should all try to obtain certified copies, from ALL 50 STATES, going AS FAR BACK, AS POSSIBLE, of the DNC and GOP POTUS NOMINATION CERTIFICATES. It would be extremely useful to track back and see when the changes occurred in the wording of the certificates. We can then start to make conclusions as to motive. It may be that the changes pre-dated the potential Presidential candidacy of Mr Obama. If so, this would suggest that The Constitution, itself, was the target of the DNC.

    We know the DNC hate The Constitution, because it constrains many of their political ambitions. Installing a Constitutionally ineligible Usurper into The White House is a very effective tactic for those who wish to undermine and marginalize The Constitution. They MUST NOT be allowed to prevail.

    [Ed. No harm in going back in time to see when and if the language changed.]

  67. juriggs knows more about this Certification of Nomination process than those of you who are hypothesizing based on insufficient dtata. He has done the leg work; that is, on his own, beginning last November, he began corresponding with state elections officials in his campaign to obtain the documentation submitted by the D’s and R’s to get the name of their nominee for POTUS on the states’ general election ballots. He knows that the language that must appear on the Certification is different for each state. In some states, the Certification must originate with the state party Chair, and not the DNC or RNC. In TX, for example, the state party Chair submitted a Certification signed by him; in HI, the state party Chair submitted a cover letter with NP’s Certification. Ascribe whatever motivation you want to variations in signing; but the evidence only indicates, what is written on the Certification all depends on the law in that state.

    This also means, pretending to know what is in the Certifications presented to each state by the RNC is silly (unless you actually know the laws in all 50 states regarding the presentation to elections officials of these Certifications of Nomination). http://jbjd.wordpress.com

    [Ed. Well, feel free to post links to actual the documents.]

  68. Here’s a better idea – I’ll teach these folks to fish, instead of frying it up myself and serving it to them on a platter.

    Okay, folks, here’s a good place to start:

    http://find.sos.state.ga.us/archon/index.php

    It’s the Georgia State archives. Somewhere in those dusty old folders, the state has copies of the 2000 Certs. All you have to do is find the doc reference number and email a doc request to the Secretary of State’s office.

    Good luck, and keep me posted! I’ll reveal the answer on Monday or Tuesday if no one has figured it out by then…

    [Ed. Just post the documents. This is a team effort. There’s no point in wasting time. If you’ve got something to show us then show it and explain it. There’s alot going on. Furthermore, this issue apparently got to the Secretary of State in New Hampshire (see my latest blog) who is now doing an investigation into whether fraud was involved in Obama’s name appearing on the ballot. The JB Williams article has had impact. I don’t understand what your problem is.]

  69. [UPDATE: 9/14/08 6:58 PM – Justin and I are cool now. He’s provided some serious research on this issue.]

    [.. bho boo Says:

    September 11, 2009 at 10:31 pm
    jurigg, so you’re saying that Constitutional eligibility being only required by Hawaii, is why they removed that line from all the other states’ certifications?

    LOL. Yeah. Right. ..]

    no, what I’m saying is that perhaps the template was the one that was sent to “all the other states”, and the DNC lawyers added the extra language due to the HI statute. That makes sense, right? But we don’t know, do we? Neither, you, nor me, nor CFP have any idea. In fact, there are only a very select few who DO know why there are two different certs, and they’re not talkin’.

    [Ed. So you don’t know the answer either. Geez, back off then. The discussion has opened many eyes. Be happy about that. If you have a problem, write to JB Williams and ask him to give you credit. My readers and I are not the problem here.]

    I’m warning people now – I’m grumpy about this.

    [Ed. OK, we’ve been warned…whatever that means.]

    I’ve been studying this issue for a year now. I’m the one who first found that HI Cert, and I’m the one who has written hundreds of letters to officials across this country on this topic specifically. If you step out of line, I’m gonna call you on it. I’m tired of the lousy logic, the rush to judgement, &c., &c by people who don’t know the first thing about the topic. Hold your tongues – zeal without knowledge a fool makes quickly.

    [Ed. People are asking questions… that’s good. Move on and provide any info your research may have discovered. You want credit? Get a credit card. I’ve seen my work taken wholesale and reprinted with no link to this site multiple times. Whatever, I don’t care. I’m not in this to make a name for myself. I’d rather everyone reading this blog just forgot my name. Hell, I may even change my name when this is done. This isn’t about credit. It’s about the future of this nation and its survival as a Constitutional Republic. Now I’m warning you, move on and join the fight by telling us what you’ve found… links to documents etc. But cut the holier than thou crap. I’m sick of it.]

  70. @IceTrey…

    [… if the other 49 states don’t require the additional language but don’t care if it is present, why not just make up one document with it included and send that to all the states? …]

    See, now that’s a great question! Why don’t you go find an answer to it? You better work fast, though, because I’m working on it, too. I’ll race you to the answer!

    (Let me give you some advice: Don’t ask the DNC.)

  71. I think that the 2004 documents should be checked to see how they read. I do agree with Leo on this and people at Zapem. If they are all consistent, then it sounds pretty interesting.

  72. To argue about an alleged Chester Arthur precedent is implicitly to admit that the eligibility clause has been violated.

  73. [Ed. The analysis there is faulty. Obama is NOT a “British Overseas Citizen”. This will be discussed in a forthcoming report. BOC is not correct. The proper reading of the statutes (and this is corroborated by the UK Government) does not make Obama a BOC. If that were the case then all of the native Kenyans would also be BOC. The problems are coming from improper understanding as to interpretation of the BNA 1981 and applicable repeals. I have this locked down and will publish it soon.]

    what’s going on here?

    In the British Nationality Act of 1981, all previous citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies became “British Dependent Territories” citizens. This term was later amended to “British overseas territories” citizen.

    “s 23 Citizens of U.K. and Colonies who are to become British overseas territories citizens at commencement.

    “(1) A person shall at commencement become a British overseas territories citizen if–
    (a) immediately before commencement he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had that citizenship by his birth, naturalization or registration in a British overseas territory; or
    (b) he was immediately before commencement a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and was born to a parent—
    (i) who at the time of the birth (‘the material time’) was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and
    (ii) who either had that citizenship at the material time by his birth, naturalization or registration in a British overseas territory or was himself born to a parent who at the time of that birth so had that citizenship.”

    In 1981, Obama became a British overseas territories citizen by virtue of the latest BNA, which was amended by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.

    “2 British overseas territories citizenship

    “(1) Pursuant to section 1, British Dependent Territories citizenship is renamed ‘British overseas territories citizenship’; and a person having that citizenship is a ‘British overseas territories citizen.’”

    [Ed. I will explain in detail in my report. You have misread the statute. The BNA 1981 does not make a BOC of all native Kenyans. That would be absurd. But I do understand the confusion and will report on it soon.]

  74. [Ed. I will explain in detail in my report. You have misread the statute. The BNA 1981 does not make a BOC of all native Kenyans. That would be absurd. But I do understand the confusion and will report on it soon.]

    I got it from the the breif filed buy Cody Judy on Orly’s case.

    “Mr. Cody Robert Judy filed a Brief of Amicus Curie, yesterday, in the action Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al., being heard by Judge David O. Carter, in the U.S. Federal District Court, Southern Division of California, Santa Ana Federal Building.”

    [Ed. If he filed telling the court Obama is a BOC he’s just made a big mistake. I checked with multiple sources, Kenyans are not British Overseas Citizens… that’s not how it works.]

  75. http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/839473.html

    Heres another big mistake, Orly just blew the Rhodes case IMO,
    pushing the BC issue.
    Watch for the Judge to slam her and Captain Rhodes down hard.

    During a hearing in U.S. District Court Monday, an attorney for an Army officer fighting deployment to Iraq questioned Barack Obama’s legal right to serve as president, asserting he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

    Judge Clay Land, inquisitive throughout the 90-minute hearing, said he will issue a decision on Capt. Connie Rhodes’ request for a temporary restraining order by noon Wednesday.

    Rhodes was represented by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer and a national figure in the “birther” movement that claims Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president.

    California attorney Orly Taitz, the president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, stands on the steps of the Columbus federal courthouse Friday with what she claims is a copy of a birth certificate for President Barack Obama from Mombass, British Protectorate of Kenya.

    /Robin Trimarchi/rtrimarchi@ledger-enquirer.com

    Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington, told Land this case was about Rhodes, not Obama.

    “There was a lack of any reference to Capt. Rhodes,” Ausprung said. “This case is about Capt. Rhodes and her deployment.”

    Taitz kept going back to Obama’s birth certificate. Twice she called Obama a “usurper.”

    Land repeatedly pointed out it was a courtroom where the rule of law was all that mattered.

    “Whenever I give you a minute, you go off on these talking points,” Land said.

    “We have not seen Mr. Obama’s birth certificate,” Taitz responded.

    “This is not a forum to lay ground work for a press conference,” Land said. “This is a court of law.”

    In her final argument, Taitz asked Land why she had to prove a “Kenyan birth certificate” she submitted as evidence was authentic, yet her opponents didn’t have to prove Obama had an authentic United States birth certificate.

    “Who has the burden of establishing that the president of the United States is not eligible to serve in his office?” Land asked Taitz.

    The judge pointed out that burden fell on Rhodes because she sought the restraining order to stop her deployment.

    Rhodes received her officer’s commission in March 2005, according to Monday’s testimony. It took two years for her to complete medical school at the University of Illinois. She went on active duty June 18, 2007, while doing her internships and residency at Army hospitals.

    For the Army paying for her third and fourth years of medical school, Rhodes committed to serve two years’ active duty. That commitment started in July 2008.

    She has previously served at Fort Gordon near Augusta, Fort Rucker in south Alabama and Fort Riley in Kansas.

    She is currently at Fort Benning, awaiting deployment in the next week. She arrived here over the weekend.

    Under questioning from Land, Rhodes said she had not declined any other orders since Obama became president.

    “If Sen. McCain would have won, would you be objecting to deployment to Iraq?” the judge asked. Rhodes said no.

    Land then asked the question another way: If President George W. Bush still was the commander in chief, would she be fighting the deployment?

    “No, sir,” Rhodes answered.

  76. The other side

    by John Charlton

    (Sept. 14, 2009: PM) — Federal Judge Clay D. Land held an Emergency Stay hearing in Rhodes vs. Mac Donald today at the William Augustus Bootle Federal Building & Court House, Columbus, Georgia, at noon.

    Present at the hearing was Captain Connie Rhodes, M. D., who was seeking judicial remedy in her particular circumstances against usurpation of the presidency by Barack Hussein Obama.

    Her attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, in court explained at length the fundamental constitutional issues, the extensive evidence tying Obama to SSN fraud, and the particular necessity for Rhodes to be granted an emergency stay of her deployment, until the court provides remedy for determining Obama’s lawfulness to be Commander-in-Chief of U.S. armed forces.

    Judge Clay D. Land said that he would issue his ruling on Wednesday, according to published accounts on the web.

    This was confirmed for The Post & Email, by Mr. Neil Turner, who spoke by phonewith Attorney Taitz, as she prepared to leave for California.

    Turner says he read the news report filed by Chuck Williams of the Ledger-Inquirer, about the hearing, to get Taitz’s reaction:

    I read to her the biased report, especially the part that said:

    “Who has the burden of establishing that the president of the United States is not eligible to serve in his office?” Land asked Taitz.

    And that: The judge pointed out that burden fell on Rhodes because she sought the restraining order to stop her deployment.

    I suggested that that sounds like an opening for the Court to order ‘discovery’, so that Captain Rhodes could, in fact, meet the burden of proof that the Judge is asking for.

    Orly said that that is exactly what she did — it seems that the Ledger-Inquirer reporter failed to catch those comments— but Judge Land will not answer that request until a decision is entered on Wednesday.

    Indeed according to Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, interviewed last week by The Post & Email, it is an established political fact, that Obama has never proven he is eligible:

    We can say now, after a year of chasing this wild rabbit called a birth certificate, that a bona fide birth certificate for Mr. Obama does not exist as a matter of political fact. We can say, therefore, categorically, that Mr. Obama has failed to establish his eligibility – that he cannot and that he will not.

    LADY ATTORNEYS BATTLE IT OUT

    Mr. Turner provided additional information about Monday’s hearing, in Columbus, GA, not published elsewhere:

    Orly said that JAG attorney Maj. Rebecca Ausprung argued that Lucas Smith ‘bribed’ officials in Kenya for his document (thereby rendering is useless, I suppose),

    and Orly countered with the fact that Captain Connie Rhodes, a Medical Doctor, has pointed out that the Hawaiian C.O.L.B. proves nothing, as there is no hospital or delivering doctor named on it.

    Turner also confirmed, that Dr. Taitz will publish her own views about the case, tomorrow at her blog.

    Judge Land’s question regarding the determination of eligibility echoes others in public service. Numerous citations from members of Congress, before and after the Joint Session of January 8, 2009, revealed widepread ignorance and complete apathy by many politicians on the necessity of the one claiming to be eligible, to prove that he is. Though Congress held several hearings regarding Citizenship and the Natural Born requirement of Article II, Section 2, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution, in the last 9 years, no Congressman seems willing to go on record, to affirm the testimony advanced by 7 Supreme Court rulings, which clearly state, that a natural born citizen, is one born in the U.S.A., of parents who were both U.S. citizens, at the time of one’s birth.

    Posted in Law Cases, People in the News, US Military | Tagged Captain Connie Rhodes, Chuck Williams, Dr. Orly Taitz, Eligibility, Judge Clay D. Land, Ledger-Enquirer stories, Major Rebecca E. Ausprung, Neil Turner, Rhodes vs. Mac Donald, Stephen Pidgeon | No Comments Yet

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: