> TODAY
> <http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/auth/ca/obama-eligibility-court-case-blow
> -by-blow/> 'S OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE.BLOW BY BLOW
>
>
> By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
>
> Given the testimony from today's court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of
> explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was
> Obama.
>
> The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
>
> Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility
> case were called to the Judge's chambers. This was indeed a very interesting
> beginning to this long awaited and important case.
>
> The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and
> whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if
> found ineligible, Obama's name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in
> Georgia.
>
> With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen
> fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the
> attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
>
> Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near
> Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and
> in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
>
> Over the last several weeks, Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, had
> attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first
> tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama.
> After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law,
> determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was
> simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
>
> After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski,
> in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place
> Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and
> neither he nor his client would participate.
>
> Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling
> Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he
> would do so at his and his clients peril.
>
> Game on. 5 minutes. 10 minutes. 15 minutes with the attorneys in the
> judge's chambers.
>
> <http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/in-2.jpg>
> Error! Filename not specified.
>
> 20 minutes
>
> It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to
> the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge's chambers.
>
> Has Obama's attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is
> he directly ignoring the court's subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the
> law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or
> our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
>
> Certainly not.
>
> Court is called to order. Obama's birth certificate is entered into
> evidence.
>
> Obama's father's place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
>
> Pages 214 and 215 from Obama's book, "Dreams from My Father" entered into
> evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967
> that his father's history is mentioned. It states that his father's passport
> had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
>
> Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
>
> June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama's father's status
> shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through
> the Freedom of Information Act.
>
> Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing
> Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875.
> The attorney points out the difference between "citizen" and "Natural Born
> Citizen" using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
>
> It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition
> or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court
> rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule
> the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
>
> The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at
> the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As
> Obama's father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama,
> constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
>
> Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken
> accordingly.
>
> Carl Swinson takes the stand. Testimony is presented that the SOS has
> agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will
> be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
>
> 2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding
> documents of challenge to Obama's appearance on the Georgia ballot and his
> candidacy.
>
> Court records of Obama's mother and father entered into evidence. Official
> certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
>
> RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence. DNC language does NOT
> include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES.
> This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly
> have known that Obama was not qualified.
>
> Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their
> desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not
> participate.
>
> Dreams From My Father entered.
>
> Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
>
> Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into
> evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama's
> father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
>
> This information states clearly that Obama's father was NEVER a U.S.
> Citizen.
>
> At this point, the judge takes a recess.
>
> The judge returns. David Farrar takes the stand. Evidence showing
> Obama's book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not
> relevant by the judge.
>
> Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump. Enters into evidence a portion
> of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama's mother
> for her passport listing Obama's last name something other than Obama.
>
> State Licensed PI takes the stand. She was hired to look into Obama's
> background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977.
> Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used
> or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This
> shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed
> born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama. Same SS number
> came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
>
> <http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/court-7.jpg>
> Error! Filename not specified.
>
> Next witness takes the stand. This witness is an expert in information
> technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama
> provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies,
> indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more
> than one original document.
>
> Linda Jordan takes the stand. Document entered regarding SS number assigned
> to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as
> suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies
> ones citizenship.
>
> Next witness. Mr. Gogt. Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18
> years.
>
> Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is
> suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by
> "unsharp mask" in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is
> considered to be a fraud. States this is a product of "layering". Mr.
> Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show
> such layering. Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama
> documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are
> hand stamped. Obama's documents are all even, straight and exactly the same
> indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by
> computer.
>
> Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration
> officer specializing in immigration fraud. Ran Obama's SS number through
> database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state
> of Connecticut. Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue,
> Obama was living in Hawaii.
>
> Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at
> that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different
> than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
>
> Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who
> adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to
> immigration records. Suggests all records from Social Security,
> Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are
> criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
>
> Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be
> arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for
> sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
>
> Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in
> Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
>
> Taitz takes the stand herself. Testifies that records indicate Obama
> records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
>
> Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments. Taitz states that
> Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to
> serve as President.
>
> And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
>
> What can we take away from this? It's interesting. Now, all of this has
> finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
>
> One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered. WHO THE HELL
> IS THIS GUY?
>
> Without his attorney present, Obama's identity, his Social Security number,
> his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
>
> One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the
> definition of Natural Born Citizen" provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be
> eligible to serve as President.
>
> What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly
> impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama
> and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the
> Georgia ballot. It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be
> brought in other states as well.
>
> Obama is in it deep and the DNC has a lot of explaining to do unless
> they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.

so how's the vice prez? awake I hope...

My major in College was Graphic Design and what they're saying about the unsharp mask filter and the layering is correct. I'm not a birther, but something needs to be explained.

The circus just keeps getting more and more interesting.

Indeed

This is why this is all a bunch of b.s.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001405----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

Confirmation from newspaper of published birth announcement:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

Microfilm copy of a second newspaper's publishing of birth announcement....It's listed right next to the "$7.50 Suit Rentals" box. The print is small, so you might want to view an enlarged image.




This court case is asserting that Obama is ineligible because one of his parents was a foreigner. This is not how the citizenship laws in this country work....UNLESS a person is born outside of U.S. jurisdiction. This plaintiffs in this case are not attempting to prove Obama was born outside the U.S. - which should be the whole foundation of their case given the tact they are using. Instead, they are using Case Law which PRECEDES a change in citizenship law specifically applying to Hawaii.

In short, their argument is bunk. If they win, it will be because the judge himself is not properly familiar with this area of law, and more specifically how it applies to Hawaii which has special circumstances compared to other States and Territories.

I cant imagine it going through, it would imply a complete breakdown in our system and make us the laughing stock of the world

it would put in motion a backup of litigation and scrutiny about the validity of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING President Obama has put his name to INCLUDING Things the republicans wanted

it would be, in short, cutting off ones nose to spite their face,,,its quite ridiculous and I still dont understand what people hope to have accomplished other than to defeat one candidate by any and all means necessary including singularly extraordinary ones for this or the previous generation

,,,,wonder why?


and the world will too,,,, if people dont want him, they should not vote for him, if they have to defeat him by keeping up this nonsense,, it will make americans look alot worse than it will the President

According to the article, the SCOTUS ruled that you have to be born to two American citizens to be considered a "natural born" citizen.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162

OCTOBER, 1874, Term

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html

Fixed it

In the long run who cares cause natural born presidents haven't done any better.Hell our last president was a natural born idiot.

If they are going to ruin the country, they have to be naturally born to it. Don't want a foreigner doing it.

he was no more a foreigner than my daughter is,,,Im born and raised here and she came here born through me,,,how can a government say she is not 'natural born',,,,,,

its quite insulting and ridiculous

According to how it's written a natural born citizens appears to be a child born to parents that are citizens of the US....not just one parent being a citizen....looks as if the way its written if one parent is a non-citizen it would make the child a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.

The government isn't saying it.

As far as citizenship is concerned being born to one American citizen even if abroad, the child is a citizen.

That is crystal clear..

it is not 'written' that way anywhere

it is assumed that it is 'meant' because the person in question was the child of two US parents,, but nowhere is such a requirement 'written'

so explain, if he is a citizen

and not foreign, nor alien, nor naturalized,,,what kind of citizenship is left,,,?


natural born?


the case law used is a stretch at best

its like me citing a case that deems someone american citizen because they are born in maryland to try to prove anyone NOT born in maryland is therefore not an american citizen

the case dealt with a specific situation and described that situation but it did not explicitly or otherwise 'define' the paramaters of 'natural born' status

It's basically a precedent they are going to have to argue and clarify.....because a law from the late 1800's states the definition in the eye of the Supreme Court being a natural born citizen as a child of two citizen parents. As this particular person was. Everyone else associated as a citizen, its confusing, but per the wording used for a natural born citizen. McCain was attested for being born on a military base out of the country. Based on this law i am not sure he would have been a Natural Born Citizen either.

there is no 'law' that says this sea,,,,,