|
Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, AIP leaders sue in CA court to obtain Obama citizenship proof, stop Secretary of State from certifying Electors Fenton, MI – November 14, 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, vice-presidential candidate Wiley S. Drake, and the Chairman of the American Independent Party, Markham Robinson, have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento seeking to bar Secretary of State Debra Bowen from certifying to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the names of Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States, and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain. In addition, they have asked that the court issue a peremptory writ barring Senator Obama’s California Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified. In response to questions about why the suit was being filed, Ambassador Alan Keyes commented, “I and others are concerned that this issue be properly investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office. Otherwise there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his tenure. This doubt would also affect the respect people have for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt. This will be good for him and for the nation.” Former Reagan administration official Ambassador Alan Keyes and Wiley S. Drake were the 2008 presidential and vice-presidential nominees of the American Independent Party, which is the California affiliate of the new national America’s Independent Party. Mission Viejo, California attorney Dr. Orly Taitz and United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep are representing the plaintiffs in this case. Copies of the court filing, along with further information concerning developments in this case, will be made available at www.AIPNEWS.com, or can be obtained by contacting AIP national chairman Tom Hoefling at tomhoefling@gmail.com.
Attachments
----------------
 Keyes obama CA lawsuit press release final.doc (24KB - 11 downloads)
| |
| | |
Changing of the Guard
"Constitutional Crisis" Looming Over Obama's Birth Location
Alan Keyes Lawsuit Warns America May See "Usurper" in Oval Office
Posted: November 14, 2008
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others. The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen," a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution. WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions. The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors. The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii? Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born, while a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya. The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Alan Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors. "Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges. The petition is a request for the Superior Court of California in Sacramento County to issue a peremptory writ barring Secretary of State Debra Bowen "from both certifying to the governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain." It continues with a request for a writ barring California's electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until documentary proof is produced. Read More ... | |
| Posted 2008-11-14 7:15 PM (#3187 - in reply to #3186) By: Philomena
|
| | |
 "Oh say 'kenya' see?"
This is brillant and about time, being that we have kicked this issue around going on a year. Talk about stumping the news that hillary could be ob's sec of state pic. I haven't felt this good in months. We must pray that this cert (or lack of) issues stays at the forefront of every news cycle as long as it is missing. Perhaps an officail serch should be televised. Imagine a US President who doesn't know who is daddy (but he might be a communist) is or where he was born??? What the...
This is why the Founding Fathers added that little clause into The Constitution that you have to be born on US soil in order to serve as president, just in case some gray day in American History when let's say for example that a muslim born in kenya with international terrorist and marxist ties steals the election and can't produce a genuine birth certificate, again, just in case this ever were to happen.
| |
| Posted 2008-11-14 8:11 PM (#3188 - in reply to #3187) By: unclesam
|
| | |
This thing has pretty much gone viral. Very few "media" sources picking it up as news, but it's everywhere on the web.
| |
| | |
bttt... | |
| | |
top | |
| Posted 2008-11-15 10:20 AM (#3195 - in reply to #3191) By: Savvy
|
| | |
Bttt... | |
| | |
Bttt | |
| Posted 2008-11-15 12:54 PM (#3201 - in reply to #3199) By: marchingon
|
| | |
The Source http://thesourcedaily.com/world-and-domestic-news/hal-lindsey-why-wont-senator-obama-produce-official-copy-of-birth-certificate/ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=80943 | |
| Posted 2008-11-15 12:56 PM (#3202 - in reply to #3199) By: gcsteven
|
| | |
top | |
| Posted 2008-11-15 7:21 PM (#3220 - in reply to #3186) By: Savvy
|
| | |
This is a comment that was posted to the Hal Lindsey article: I was born in Hawaii the same time as Obama. I went down and got my birth certificate last year for my passport.
Anyone who has seen a real Hawaii birth certificate knows that Obama must be hiding something.
Hawaii Birth certificates are not green. The green ones are for trivial issues. The passport office only took my real vault black and white one. Obama should just go get the black and white vault ones and prove to everyone he is legit. Otherwise what is he trying to hide?
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/What_s_Obama_hiding_from_us_by_Hal_Lindsey | |
| Posted 2008-11-16 6:21 AM (#3223 - in reply to #3202) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Bttt... | |
| | |
Top | |
| Posted 2008-11-17 12:15 PM (#3256 - in reply to #3248) By: marchingon
|
| | |
Breaking
Former Obama opponent now suing to prove President-elect's citizenship
NBC Augusta
By Rich Rogers rrogers@nbcaugusta.com
Story Published: Nov 17, 2008 at 12:30 PM EST
Story Updated: Nov 17, 2008 at 7:05 PM EST SACRAMENTO, Calif.- A former opponent of Barack Obama's has come back to haunt him over questions regarding Obama's citizenship. According to a press release from the little known American Independent Party, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and other members of his the party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided to prove Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. Some conservatives have questioned Obama's citizenship in recent months. Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961. Keyes also ran against Obama as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004. Obama won that election to serve his first and only term in the U.S. Senate. See article and photo: http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/obama/34587804.html
Edited by Philomena 2008-11-17 4:17 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-17 4:15 PM (#3263 - in reply to #3256) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Here's a list I found which lists some of the documents that Obama has or has not released. Believe me, it leans very heavily towards the latter... Here’s the list: Original birth certificate — Not released
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Besuki School application — Released
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released but under suspicion of being a fraud
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned - of course if it’s unsigned??)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None | |
| | |
Obama's "Certificate of live birth" proves nothing whatsoever. From Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2133728/posts?page=138#138 Well, here's proof that Obamas "Certificate Of Live Birth" means nothing.
Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.
This is straight from the Hawaii Department Of Health Website http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
. In other words, the "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on Obama's website, Factcheck.org and the Daily KOS doesn't prove anything, simply because someone born in a foreign country could file for an amended certificate -- click the link, read it for yourself.
Obama's sister Maya was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, but Anna Dunham registered her as "born in Honolulu" shortly after her birth. Maya has a State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, just like Obama -- proves nothing.
| |
| | |
Don't miss above, that the story was finally picked up by a MSM affiliate: NBC Augusta, Georgia | |
| Posted 2008-11-17 4:58 PM (#3268 - in reply to #3266) By: Philomena
|
| | |
This, previously posted by Philomena on another thread, still seems the most salient argument...
Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
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;
That's it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.
Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.]
| |
| Posted 2008-11-17 5:06 PM (#3269 - in reply to #3268) By: groovsmyth
|
| | |
As reported by the ever-alert groovsmyth, the NBC Augusta, Georgia article was censored off the website shortly after I copied it, comments and all. We have it here at AIPNews!!! | |
| Posted 2008-11-17 5:35 PM (#3276 - in reply to #3269) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Go ahead and post it in its entirety here, if you want. | |
| | |
This is the way AIPNEWS is SUPPOSED to work! | |
| | |
The article is posted above in it's entirety because it was so short. The only thing I added was the word "Breaking". The only thing I didn't copy was the picture that had Obama's face on the left and Alan Keyes on the right (how appropriate!). I pasted the link and tested it and it was working. The link is now dead. The article is gone. Former Obama opponent now suing to prove President-elect's citizenship*
http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/obama/34587804.html
| |
| Posted 2008-11-17 5:54 PM (#3281 - in reply to #3278) By: Philomena
|
| | |
The NBC Augusta piece is back up. I'm copying it AND the comments there and posting them here. While there are lots of things in the comments that we generally wouldn't want on AIPNEWS, I think they're quite informative: SACRAMENTO, Calif.- A former opponent of Barack Obama's has come back to haunt him over questions regarding Obama's citizenship. According to a press release from the American Independent Party, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and other members of the party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided to prove Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. Some conservatives have questioned Obama's citizenship in recent months. Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961. Keyes also ran against Obama as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004. Obama won that election to serve his first and only term in the U.S. Senate. | |
| | |
I received a call from NBC's Augusta affiliate, verifying the facts. The gentleman told me they have received 98,000 hits on the story, more than twice as many as any other story they've ever run. :-)
| |
| | |
Leo Donofrio's "natural born" case is now on the docket for Justice Thomas http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/topic/8700.html You may not be able to access those links right away. I think they've getting WAY more hits than they can handle.
| |
| | |
Now that NBC website is claiming they recieved a copy of his birth certificate and presenting his Certificate of Live Birth as such. That is not correct and do I believe they were sent that document either. They probably got it off the web, as they have posted the same image that is available on wikipedia and countless other sites. | |
| Posted 2008-11-18 3:20 PM (#3296 - in reply to #3293) By: jomega1306
|
| | |
That document proves nothing. Not only is it easily faked, such documents were issued to folks who weren't born in Hawaii.
| |
| | |
I know. I posted that message out of outrage at a missrepresentation of the truth. I just emailed the writer to ask him to rephrase the way he wrote that. Why won't the rest of the "conservative" media report this? I can understand why they would not report Alan's candidacy (because they would look like Lenin by comparison) but this is a big issue and one that could sway public opinion against Obama from day one even if the case gets thrown out. Nothing on Town Hall or Fox or any other "conservative" site.
9: 20 PM I have to applaud these guys after I emailed them they changed their wording to better represent the facts. What a breath a fresh air we need people like that in every city.
Edited by jomega1306 2008-11-18 6:21 PM
| |
| Posted 2008-11-18 4:04 PM (#3301 - in reply to #3299) By: jomega1306
|
| | |
cc, 11/18/08 | |
| Posted 2008-11-18 7:32 PM (#3309 - in reply to #3301) By: Savvy
|
| | |
Back to the top...
| |
| | |
I just saw that DrudgeReport.com has posted a link to the story. That ought to get it more attention... | |
| Posted 2008-11-19 7:10 AM (#3331 - in reply to #3325) By: danielh41
|
| | |
top | |
| Posted 2008-11-20 10:48 AM (#3378 - in reply to #3331) By: marchingon
|
| | |
jomega1306 - 2008-11-18 6:04 PM Town Hall or Fox or any other "conservative" site. Sorry, but TownHall & Fox are NOT CONSERVATIVE! It may just be that only www.AIPNews.com is conservative.
| |
| Posted 2008-11-20 1:41 PM (#3381 - in reply to #3301) By: Geronimo
|
| | |
Petition for Writ of Mandate in Keyes - Obama suit (.pdf): http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf or http://missionviejo.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/keyes-v-obama.pdf | |
| Posted 2008-11-20 1:56 PM (#3382 - in reply to #3186) By: Savvy
|
| | |
cc, 11/20/08 | |
| Posted 2008-11-20 7:43 PM (#3413 - in reply to #3382) By: Savvy
|
| | |
National "Ask Alan"/AIP conference call Tuesday, November 18, 2008 Opening remarks
Alan Keyes: Thank you very much. I thought what I would do this evening is just take a minute or two and explain in a very simple way what I have been involved with in the last couple of weeks. We have talked about it a little bit on the calls before. You’ll notice that I lent my name to a couple of the suits that are taking place to try to determine whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born citizen. And just so that there would be no misunderstanding—and I did try to make this clear in the press release that we had issued about the case I got involved with in California—I guess I am not, myself, having looked over all of the facts and evidence and things that people have graciously sent to me and did in the course of the last several weeks, I am not sure I am able to reach a conclusion as to what the facts are. But what has appalled me, I guess, even as I have read the transcript of court decisions and things like that that have been taken up to this point, is the notion that somehow or another, step number one, citizens don’t have standing to ask him, even though the Constitution is a document that speaks for “we the people.” When people go to the polls to vote, presumably they have both an obligation to respect the Constitution—I think in Florida, for instance, people actually have to take an oath to do so—and the expectation that it will be followed. Therefore, as a whole people, we have a critical interest in making sure that the supreme law of the land, as expressed in the Constitution—which gives proper basis and procedure to our sovereign will as the people of the United States —be followed. And yet, there has been an almost casual assumption, including, I think, the judge in the Berg case who was arguing things about the electorate having made a choice, and so forth and so on, as if any given instance of the majority overrides the Constitution. And I find it kind of incongruous that you would have this kind of an attitude coming from the bench, since the whole notion of judicial review, which they constantly are exercising, is based on the idea that an instance of majority will, whether it’s a legislature deciding on a law, or any other instance of a majority vote, that that instance of a majority will does not override the Constitution of the United States. And this is something that has been clear: that you have a duty to follow the Constitution, that the judges, if they see in a law something that conflicts with the Constitution, have to therefore follow the Constitution, not the will of the majority as expressed through their representatives, or even as directly expressed in some electoral contest. No. Because, as Hamilton argued in Federalist 78—and I want to read this, because I think it is very important—“A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both.” And of course, in the Constitution itself, by the authority of the people, a procedure is put down for amending the Constitution—that is, for changing its terms—and unless that procedure is followed, the sovereign will of the people as expressed in the Constitution is the supreme law and must be followed. That is so simple. It is so clear. So, in this particular case, the Constitution says that in order to be eligible for the presidency, you’ve got to be a natural born citizen. If, on account of the incompetence of the party system, or its corruption, or whatever may be the reasoning, an individual happens to win a presidential election who turns out not to be qualified, then the Constitution still has to be followed. The idea that it does not I think is a dangerous situation for the whole country, because it suggests that somehow or another, on the basis of this or that majority will, as expressed in this or that way, the Constitution becomes a dead letter. And then you ask yourself, what becomes of the fundamental rights, for instance, in the Bill of Rights if the Constitution becomes a dead letter when a given majority wants to run roughshod over the rights of a minority? What if that attitude had been taken during the course of the argumentations and struggles in the Civil Rights movement, in the women’s rights movement, and in all kinds of things that have ultimately depended on the assumption that there is an understanding of justice—as articulated in the Constitution, as expressed in our understanding of basic, unalienable rights—that has to be followed, even by the majority? In order to maintain the Union, which allows us to go through elections and sit back and say, “Well, we didn’t win this time, but we’ll wait for the next time,” what we are trusting in, what we are giving credence to, what we are lending authority to is not the will of the majority: it is the Constitution of the United States. You take away the authority of the Constitution, as expressed through that transcendent will of the people, and what have you got in any given instance of a majority vote? You’ve got a majority imposing its will on a minority that may or may not be willing to accept that will. For the sake of what do the folks who lose the vote accept the result? Well, for the sake of the Constitution, to which we all bear allegiance. Once you have destroyed the notion that that Constitution must be respected, you have introduced the country into a very dangerous state, in which individuals who are disgruntled with the way things are going and the way the majority decides, and the way “this and that—,” they no longer say to themselves, “Well, we are all part of a Union, based on our commitment to the Constitution and its basic respect for human rights that it represents,” no, that is no longer binding. They are left to say, “The only thing that binds us is force, and therefore, if you come to force me to accept your will, then I’ll oppose you by force, and we’ll see what happens.” Do we want that in this country? I think not. I guess it’s my hope that regardless of how the facts fall out, the only interest in all of this ought to be to ascertain the fact. If that fact is in accordance with the Constitution, fine. We’ll do what we always do. We’ll accept the result, and we’ll go on trying to build, as we are building through this effort that Tom and others are making. You start to work in political life, you build an alternative so that people can, by the means provided for in the Constitution, continue to work for the things that they believe in. I think that is what we all believe. On the other hand, if the facts are not in accordance with the Constitution, then I would presume that those in authority would understand it to be their obligation to follow the Constitution, so as not to undermine the sense of its authority, the allegiance to that authority, which I think at the end of the day has, in the course of this country’s history, preserved us from the kind of turmoil and difficulties that often arise in other societies on account of political competition. I think that this is something that has been understood in America since the very earliest years of the republic: that our commitment to and allegiance to the Constitution is vitally important to the Union and the peaceful work that we do together as citizens in the same county. And I would sincerely hope that judges on the federal bench, or on the Supreme Court, or wherever it might be, will feel deeply their responsibility to this tradition, and will not only make a decision that is in accord with the facts, but will be seen to make it in accord with the Constitution, so that whatever comes out of this, it will affirm the fact that we are still a people sovereign through this constitutional instrument, and respecting that fact, rather than trying to move down a road that, at the end of the day, would begin as majority tyranny, but would end as some form of oligarchy, party dictatorship—call it what you will, it would be the end of democratic self-government. And so, that is my thinking, as I have participated in this effort. And I think that the question has been raised, the facts are not clear, and that those officials who have sworn allegiance to the Constitution owe it to the Constitution and to the people of this country to deal with this issue with integrity and expeditiously, so that we can clear the air and get on with the great business of this country. So, that is what I had to say tonight. Thank you. | |
| | |
cc, 11/20/08 | |
| Posted 2008-11-20 9:20 PM (#3424 - in reply to #3414) By: Savvy
|
| | |
To the top | |
| Posted 2008-11-22 6:14 PM (#3518 - in reply to #3424) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Review | |
| Posted 2008-11-23 12:42 AM (#3554 - in reply to #3424) By: Savvy
|
| | |
NBC Augusta, Georgia Former Obama opponent now suing to prove President-elect's citizenship By Rich Rogers rrogers@nbcaugusta.com and NBC Augusta Staff
Story Published: Nov 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM EST
Story Updated: Nov 19, 2008 at 9:04 AM EST Article is still up, and still receiving comments. | |
| Posted 2008-11-24 8:28 AM (#3594 - in reply to #3263) By: Philomena
|
| | |
I don't think they're letting very many comments go up any more. | |
| | |
Yep, there ARE new posts this morning. Still active. | |
| Posted 2008-11-24 12:28 PM (#3601 - in reply to #3595) By: Philomena
|
| | |
cc, 11/25/08 | |
| Posted 2008-11-25 8:35 PM (#3687 - in reply to #3256) By: Savvy
|
| | |
 | |
| | |
WorldNetDaily OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Orders from new president to spark lawsuit every time
Lawyer lining up plaintiff groups until citizenship dispute addressed
Posted: November 25, 2008
9:18 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily A lawyer who is playing a key role in a California lawsuit urging officials to prevent the state's 55 Electoral College votes from being recorded for Barack Obama until questions about his citizenship are resolved says he's organizing plans to challenge, even after the inauguration, every order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork generated by Obama. "We will file lawsuits on his actions, every time. As long as we have money , we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status," Gary Kreep, chief of the United States Justice Foundation, told WND today. "We're already talking to groups who are willing to be plaintiffs," he said. As WND reported, Kreep filed the California challenge with presidential candidate Alan Keyes as a plaintiff. The complaint urges the California secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast until Obama's citizenship and related eligibility to hold office is resolved. It is just one of more than a dozen legal challenges brought forward so far over Obama's citizenship. The cases all cite Obama's clouded history and the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen. Sign the petition to insist on release of birth certificate. There have been allegations he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has reported, that he could be considered a British subject because of his father's residency in what then was a British protectorate that later became Kenya, and that the "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on his website simply shows his mother registered his birth in Hawaii after he was born but does not document a location. There also have been questions raised about his travels as a youth, including the years he spent registered as a Muslim in an Indonesian school, and his later travels to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports weren't welcome in that nation. WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions. The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors. The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii? Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born, while a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya. The California action was filed on behalf of Keyes, as well as Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors. Read more ...
| |
| Posted 2008-11-26 6:48 AM (#3701 - in reply to #3694) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Hawaii laws on COLB-they really admit the COLB is junk and not to be trusted. These laws are a bunch or crap made up for a state with illegals and relatives of illegals wanting to gain US citizenship.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html
§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L
1997, c 305, §4]
[§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate. (b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant. (c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health. (d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued. (e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1] [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child. (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate. (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1] | |
| | |
Has anyone checked out Stanley Ann Dunham's passport records? It would show where she was on August 4th, 1961. | |
| Posted 2008-11-27 3:41 AM (#3741 - in reply to #3187) By: TMacLeran
|
| | |
Bttt... | |
| | |
|
should be voided, and he should be made to call for peace, and not rioting, as he declares himself responsible for this situation, and NOT the American people, or the process. The unrest will be HIS fault!!!
10:27 AM Digital Media Manager, WAGT wrote ...
A few words on how we approve comments - There are actually two levels of moderation. The first is off-site where a group of moderators check comments for language and threats (they are not associated with WAGT.) In general, most comments are posted without any regard to point of view expressed - contrary to what Free Mason 442 suggests. While I cannot speak for the off-site screener, the only reason we will not post your comments is if there is profanity or obscenity, threats, or url links.