About Me

Name: Gabrielle Cusumano
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Obama's Birth Certificate Current Information, Law Suits, Etc.



Keyes v. Lingle
: Case Dismissed; Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB
Submitted by Phil on Mon, Dec 29, 2008
<em />Keyes v. Lingle</em>: Case Dismissed; Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB

Another case that had been flying under the radar was Keyes v. Lingle, where the Constitution Party and Dr. Amb. Alan Keyes were petitioning against Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, Chief Elections Officer Kevin B. Cronin, and various other Defendants as a means of holding an official accountable for determining Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility.

Documentation:

  • Dismissed on December 5 (HTML/PDF)
  • Motion to Reconsider dismissed on December 12 (HTML/PDF)

You will notice that the case was dismissed on a technicality (according to the judge, the Plaintiffs referred to the wrong Hawaiian statute(s)), not on content.

However, the bigger story to this lawsuit is the fact that forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines (pictured) has documented in an associated affidavit (PDF) the following:

2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” [PDF] who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.

3. Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect  of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.

4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all. [emphasis mine]

The above clearly illustrates that it is impossible to determine eligibility based on the widely-circulated certification of live birth and that the only way to determine Barack Hussein Obama’s natural born citizenship status is to retrieve the currently-sealed certificate of live birth.

It appears that we’re dealing with an individual who has so much to hide on so little a document.

Update: A couple of other articles related to this posting:

-Phil

 

Dunham v. Obama: Document Confirms Fatherhood, FactCheck.org UK-Kenyan Colonial Law

Submitted by Phil on Fri, Jan 2, 2009<em />Dunham v. Obama</em>: Document Confirms Fatherhood, FactCheck.org UK-Kenyan Colonial Law

I had originally reported DecaLogosIntl.org’s posting of divorce paperwork, and Ed Hale of PlainsRadio.com received further documentation this evening as well (FreeRepublic.com has posts here and here; InvestigatingObama has the play-by-play as well as pages from Mr. Hale).

What we have, ladies and gentlemen, is another piece of the puzzle coming to light, making the whole eligibility issue for Barack Hussein Obama becoming more and more clear.

What can be confirmed is that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II’s biological father. Please see this PDF, paragraph IV (under the Plains Radio “watermark”), which reads the following:

That one child has been born to said Libellant and Libellee as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.

Of course, this does not say where the presumed President-elect was born. Also, for those who are not familiar with the legaleze, “issue” is the legal term for a child or children (can be inherently construed as singular or plural).

Therefore, what has been confirmed by FactCheck.org (Leo Donofrio’s take here) has now officially been confirmed by these divorce papers. Granted, this is not exactly breaking news, but it puts legal backing behind the fact that Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth was governed by the UK colonial laws of Kenya in 1961 regardless of where Barack Husssein Obama II was geographically born. In fact, even if Barack Hussein Obama II was born on American soil in Hawaii, his nationality status would have still been governed by Britain!

So, to bring this full circle. We now know — via Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines’ forensic work — that the FactCheck.org and related site’s certification of live birth is on record as being officially debunked (I would be open to hear of an opposing expert’s opinion who is willing to substantiate that the certification of live birth, as posted on the Internet, is enough to substantiate Barack Hussein Obama II’s natural born citizenship). Further, you’ll note from this comment that Dr. Polarik further explains how even the pictured certification’s certificate number is questionable.

And today, we now know that UK colonial citizenship had officially been linked to Barack Hussein Obama II via his father, meaning that, officially, Barack Hussein Obama II is an American citizen of some sort, but not a natural born citizen.

InvestigatingObama goes on to summarize Stephen Pidgeon’s commentary (attorney for 13 Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed):

Then, he explains how Hawaii COLB’s are not birth certificates of the kind which are required for fundamental identification. Then, he explains how it is admitted knowledge that Stanley Ann’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack, whose name was changed to Barry Soetoro and who was registered in an Indonesian elementary school as an Indonesian citizen. After this, the discussion gets into the question of whether Barack Obama might be guilty of criminal fraud, if he were born in another nation. …

Now, Pidgeon explains how becoming an Indonesian citizen voids the status of natural born Citizen, requiring naturalization, if one is to then become an American citizen, again. And now, the discussion goes to this peculiar, new working assumption of Ed Hale has that there is a immigrant’s birth certificate for BHO II on file in America

We’re also in for a big week next week, where both Berg v. Obama and Broe v. Reed have big days in court (I’ll be posting a summary of that action for next week).

Update: TheSteadyDrip blog has an interesting article on Obama’s mother around the time of his birth.

-Phil
Share This!

Some weeks ago, I had sent an email to Congressman John Linder (R-GA) through an online submission program asking him for his views on President-elect Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility for the presidency. Here are the key paragraphs of his response:

This story has been percolating in the media for a number of months.  Unfortunately, unless Senator Obama produces the documentation on his own, at this time, there is no way to verify if he is in fact a natural born citizen of the United States.  

On January 8, 2009, both the U.S. Senate and House shall meet for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral votes.  After the vote has been counted, the President of the Senate shall call for objections.  It is at this time that Federal officials in both the House and Senate may object to the certification of President-elect Obama by alleging that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President of the United States.  Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue very carefully, and I will act when appropriate and necessary.

After receiving the above, I replied back to the Congressman asking him to further elaborate on what his threshold would be to make a move to object. As of today, I have not received a reply back.

However, someone else at FreeRepublic.com allegedly has; AIPNews.com has also picked up on it

Update: Word on the blogosphere is that Rep. Linder is by no means denying the above and is, in fact, receiving a number of calls of support.

Read the rest of this entry »

ShareThis

Berg v. Obama: Scheduled for Conference

Philip Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, has officially been schedule for Supreme Court Conference:

Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.

I did notice immediately below this line that there was a denial by Associate Justice Kennedy of the same day (today). I will chalk that up as a mix-up on the docket.

Update: Jeff Schreiber chimes in.

-Phil

ShareThis

Lightfoot v. Bowen: Denied by Justice Kennedy, Resubmitted to Chief Justice Roberts

Dr. Orly Taitz DDS, counsel for Lightfoot v. Bowen, has had her stay application denied by Associate Justice Kennedy:

Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.

However, she comments that the case is being resubmitted to Chief Justice Roberts:

I decided to write to Roberts. It will be an open letter, that will be posted on the Internet, it will be read at the numerous radio stations around the country, including the radio stations around all the military bases, it will be in the video form on U-tube, the whole country will be watching him.

Dr. Taitz writes further in her commentary that she is using the “process of elimination” to try to figure out which Justices are voting against giving a case hearing in Conference…

Read the rest of this entry »

ShareThis

Candidate Qualifications: DNC Claims They Can’t Make States Determine Candidate Eligibility

In my continuing coverage of Candidate Qualifications, long-time readers of this blog Richard Lawrence and Jean brought the following to my attention (from Richard):

A DNC brief states they are a private organization and have no authority to dictate to the states, so does this mean the Secretarys of State can not legally rely on the DNC to vet presidential candidates before certifying them for the ballot or before certifying that the electors vote for a “qualified” candidate? …

It’s a legal brief in which on p. 37, the DNC admits that they have no authority to assume any type of “state action.”

Which means that the Secretary’s of State (all 50) CANNOT rely on the DNC to vet the presidential candidate.

I’ve included the brief….It’s long, so the gist of it is a Florida resident Dimaio was pissed off that the DNC wouldn’t change the schedule for the Florida primary and he some how felt that it violated his 14th Amendment, but since the DNC admitted that they do not represent the state and are private, they can and will do whatever they please as long as it complies with their rules and bylaws.

Therefore, if this is the case, how could any secretary of state rely on a private agency to tell them that a presidential candidate is eligible to be put on the ballot. They can’t!

In addition, earlier in the brief it states that each state’s democratic party has to furnish to the DNC it’s rules for selecting electors. I’d be curious to know if they followed those rules…or even if all states complied.

I think this is a goldmine of information, because this brief lists a ton of case law stating that the DNC has absolutely no power to influence the states or dictate to the states on what they should do…although the brief is primarily in regards to delegates, I think there might be a something that can help. I’m no legal expert.

While Richard has done a great job of helping out with the eligibility issue, be aware that he is making his own conclusions about the below document. Whenever I get some time, I may read through the entire document myself (I briefly scanned it before posting here) to get a better handle of what it says as well.

PDF document:

-Phil

ShareThis

Thomas v. Hosemann: MS Federal Lawsuit, WND Coverage

Update: Docket.

Daniel Scott Thomas, an Elector for California and numerous other Plaintiffs in Thomas v. Hosemann had filed suit (article from Gulf Coast News, December 5) in federal court in Mississippi against Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann:

The Mississippi lawsuit was filed November 3, prior to the election, and to date it has received no press coverage within Mississippi and virtually nowhere else either. …

In the Mississippi case titled Thomas et al vs Hosemann the plaintiffs are seeking to require Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann to verify proof of citizenship from all of the presidential candidates. The lawsuit also seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a standard procedure for verifying candidate’s qualifications, including citizenship, which currently does not exist.

According to Jackson attorney James Bell, of Bell and Associates,  who is representing Thomas and other plaintiffs, the case is still being considered. A motion to dismiss the lawsuit has been filed by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, a democrat, in behalf of Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, a republican. However, Judge Starrett has yet to act on the motion. …

Bell says GCN is the first media outlet to actually call his office about the Mississippi Obama citizenship case.

GCN contacted Secretary of State Hosemann’s office. A spokesperson had no comment on the case or the status of the lawsuit.

WorldNetDaily covers why this particular suit is so important…
Excerpted from : http://www.therightsideoflife.com/















California (Dr. Orly Taitz for Gail Lightfoot): (12/15/08
Submitted to SCOTUS Associate Justice Kennedy (docketLightfoot v. Bowen

This information is taken from AmericaMustKnow.com’s “Related Lawsuits” page.

Use ChangeDetection.com to monitor this page.

What’s this all about, anyway?

At the Supreme Court (see “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar): Latest update: 12/15/08

At the State level: Latest update: 12/16/08

Unconfirmed Reports: (12/11/08)

The following presumably does not include all above action; verifying what is a “challenge” versus “legal actions.”

  • Phil Berg mentioned another Berg v. Obama case under seal at this time
  • Virginia: Challenge
  • Illinois: Challenge
  • Ohio: Challenge
  • California: Legal action
  • North Carolina: Legal action
  • District of Columbia: Commitment to file a legal action
  • Massachusetts: Challenge
  • Maryland: Commitment from numerous individuals to file a challenge
  • Virgin Islands: Commitment to file a challenge

Lawsuit with Military and ex-Military Plaintiffs

Per

  • Phil Berg mentioned another Berg v. Obama case under seal at this time
  • Virginia: Challenge
  • Illinois: Challenge
  • Ohio: Challenge
  • California: Legal action
  • North Carolina: Legal action
  • District of Columbia: Commitment to file a legal action
  • Massachusetts: Challenge
  • Maryland: Commitment from numerous individuals to file a challenge
  • Virgin Islands: Commitment to file a challenge

Lawsuit with Military and ex-Military Plaintiffs

Per Dr. Orly Taitz’recent commentary:

“In regards to military I can represent a group of military personal and ex-military, refusing to take orders from illegitimate commander in chief. We need to spread the word and have a large group of military.”

Defunct Cases:

ShareThis

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive