"... in Georgia, the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve, became official. No longer the stuff of speculation, no longer dismissible by liberals as something which will never be heard in court, Obama’s eligibility became a matter of an official court record.
[Emphasis added] http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149
[SNIP]
Also entered into evidence were documents, discs and expert testimony calling into question the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate, his Social Security number, his father’s immigration status, his real name and indeed Obama’s own citizenship status. http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149
All of this in the effort to have Obama’s name kept off the Georgia ballot in 2012. http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149
[SNIP]
The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from a man born in 1890. It was issued in Connecticut to Obama in 1977 but at that time, again according to sworn testimony and evidence in court, Obama was living in his mother’s house in Hawaii. http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149
[Emphasis added]
From: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149
FULL ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 2:09 pm From: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149
For the first time, this morning in Georgia, the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve, became official. No longer the stuff of speculation, no longer dismissible by liberals as something which will never be heard in court, Obama’s eligibility became a matter of an official court record.
What does it mean?
To answer that, one must look at the reason for the hearing to begin with.
For years, Orly Taitz and the Liberty Legal Foundation along with others, have questioned Obama’s legal right to serve. For years, that argument centered on the birth certificate and whether or not Obama was born in the United States.
What made this case and this hearing different, is that it mattered not where Obama was born rather, at the center of the stage, would be the nationality of Obama’s father.
Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen and a great deal of evidence to that point was entered into the official record this morning.
Another linchpin in all of this, is the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” which one must be, by writ of the Constitution, to hold the office of President. According to the plaintiffs in this hearing, that definition can be clearly found in the written opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs Happersett from 1875.
That opinion, which by the way is backed up by several other Supreme Court opinions, states that for one to be a “Natural Born Citizen” both of one’s parents must be U.S. Citizens.
There is no opinion offered, at any time, by the Supreme Court in conflict with this definition and as the attorneys made clear this morning, while some lower court opinions say something else, they do not override nor do they directly conflict with, the Supreme Court decision from 1875.
If that definition is upheld, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore has no standing to hold th office of President as per the Constitution.
This hearing today certainly didn’t end there.
Also entered into evidence were documents, discs and expert testimony calling into question the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate, his Social Security number, his father’s immigration status, his real name and indeed Obama’s own citizenship status.
All of this in the effort to have Obama’s name kept off the Georgia ballot in 2012.
Here is where it become even more interesting.
After being subpoenaed to appear and after an endless stream of excuses as to why he shouldn’t, neither Obama nor his attorney were at the hearing.
This means, all the evidence and all the expert testimony was entered into the official record without a response, a peep, or a rebuttal from Obama or his attorney.
At this point, all of it remains unchallenged. All of it.
This begs the question; Can a sitting President be commanded by subpoena, to appear in court? Many claim Executive Privilege prevents it.
They would be wrong.
While EP can be claimed and upheld in cases of National Security or where it interferes with sensitive issues of security or the military, in other actions, outside those parameters, a court can compel even a sitting President to adhere to the rule of law.
In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court of the United States, citing many landmark cases, including Chief Justice Marshall’s opinions Marbury v. Madison (1803)and United States v. Burr, said that it was incumbent on the High Court to balance between the president’s need for confidentiality in executing his constitutional duties, on the one hand, and “the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice,” on the other. The Court’s unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger was careful to give great credence to the president’s need for complete candor and objectivity from his advisors. The justices also recognized the need for a great degree of confidentiality for the internal deliberations of the executive branch of government. Chief Justice Burger agreed that, if military or diplomatic secrets were at stake, the Court might reach a different conclusion.
However, given that President Nixon’s claims were based on a blanket statement of executive privilege without claiming that any state secrets were at stake, the constitutional duty of the courts is to guarantee due process of law, something that Nixon’s actions were gravely impairing, according to the Court. The justices ruled that President Nixon had to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Nixon immediately prepared to turn over the subpoenaed materials to Chief Judge Sirica.
Presidents since Nixon have continued to claim that the special place the presidency holds under America’s constitutional system demands that much of its internal deliberations remain secret and privileged. When faced with investigations, special prosecutors, subpoenas, and impeachment proceedings, President William J. Clinton, for example, claimed that much of what went on in the Oval Office was protected by executive privilege and executive immunity, and that he and his aides should not have to respond to subpoenas. As was the case with President Nixon, President Clinton eventually accepted his and his office’s place under the rule of law. Since United States v. Nixon, executive branch claims of immunity from the normal processes of the American legal system have been tempered by the fact that the constitutional demands of due process of law and justice are likely to outweigh claims of executive immunity from subpoenas.
It is yet to be seen whether the court in Georgia will take action regarding Obama’s failure to appear and the failure of his attorney to participate.
Another question worth asking; Why no media coverage of this hearing?
Granted, the mainstream or elite or whatever we’re calling them these days media lean hard to the left and it should come as no surprise that they refuse to give an eye blink toward this hearing. But what of Fox News and even their local Georgia affiliates? Why was nary a word of any broadcast given to today’s hearing?
I suspect it has a great deal to do with their prior position that the birth certificate was real…case closed. I also suspect, that should the Georgia judge find compelling reason to exclude Obama from the state’s 2012 ballot, this WILL become a story.
For those in the conservative blogosphere, this IS a story and IS newsworthy?
How often is a sitting President subpoenaed? How often has a sitting President’s eligibility to appear on a state ballot been questioned in court? How often has a sitting President’s birth certificate been questioned as fake under oath? How often has a sitting President’s eligibility to hold office been testified to in court? How often has a sitting President’s nationality been testified to in court?
This is news. Regardless of what side one takes…This is news.
Never before has a sitting President’s Social Security numbers been shown by evidence and sworn testimony in court as being fraudulent.
The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from a man born in 1890. It was issued in Connecticut to Obama in 1977 but at that time, again according to sworn testimony and evidence in court, Obama was living in his mother’s house in Hawaii.
One witness in court testified that Obama’s SS number was run through the E-Verify system, the system used to validate a person’s citizenship, and it came back as a high degree of being fraudulent.
Anyway one looks at this, it is news.
At the end of the 2 hour hearing, Judge Michael Malihi adjourned the hearing gathered up all the evidence and the court reporters transcript and returned to his chambers.
At this time, we wait, for how long, we don’t know, for his decision as to whether or not Obama’s name is eligible to appear on the 2012 Georgia ballot.
One can easily suspect, that should he find against Obama in this hearing, a tidal wave of similar cases will be filed in other states. Already, similar cases are pending in some states.
Orly Taitz, the Liberty Legal Foundation and others stand ready to carry forward in such cases.
We also await a decision as to what, if any action, might be taken regarding Obama’s failure to appear and his attorney’s decision to simply not participate under a court subpoena.
Why, if as liberals have claimed for years, all of this is folly and easily dismissed by “facts”, did Obama’s attorney not simply present those “facts” and put an end to it? It would seem that letting it all go unchallenged clearly adds fuel to the fire.
The mere presentation of evidence and sworn testimony today lends a great deal of credibility to the arguments as it is now a matter of official record.
A default judgment should be rendered and no doubt, it will be appealed but we suspect the judge will disallow Obama’s name from appearing on the Georgia ballot. No doubt too, other states will begin to file similar complaints.
The final questions, left unanswered and unchallenged by Obama and his attorney are…Who is this guy Obama really? Who is this who by evidence presented lived in Indonesia and Hawaii at the exact same time? Who is this guy whose SS number indicates he is more than 120 years old and lived in a state in which he never lived. Who is this guy who has been known by at least 2 different names? Who is this guy to which evidence in court indicates is a citizen of Indonesia? Who is this Obama whose birth certificate, shown in evidence and sworn testimony, has been created through layering and computer manipulation and has serial numbers out of sequence with those of others born in the claimed hospital within 24 hours of his supposed birth?
Whoever he is…Whoever he really is…he now occupies the oval office.
Jan. 26, 2012) — The court convened at approximately 9:30 a.m. Judge Michael Malihi began by asking those present to stand and reading the last paragraph of Atty. Michael Jablonski’s
letter to Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State, “into the record,” commenting that Jablonski was not present at the hearing.
The judge called plaintiff David Welden to stand and asked where he resided and if he were a registered voter in the state of Georgia. Then his attorney, Van Irion, stood and stated that there were three types of citizenship in the United States. He then provided argument on the definition of “natural born Citizen,” referring to Minor v. Happersett.
“The court should recognize that the term ‘citizen” is not ‘natural born Citizen,’ Irion said. “The Minor court’s definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ says ‘parents.’
“In closing, this case is about the Constitution,” Irion said. We’ve shown that Barack Obama’s father was never a citizen…and that means he is not constitutionally qualified…Finally, the defendant was ordered to be here, and I wish to state on the record that that shows not just a contempt for this court…”
Then Irion was interrupted and stopped speaking.
9:54 a.m.: Atty. J. Mark Hatfield stood and stating that he represents Kevin Richard Powell and Carl Swensson. Hatfield mentioned the White House schedule as he saw that it related to Obama’s lack of attendance at the hearing.
Carl Swensson was sworn in at 9:56 a.m. and stated his residence and county. Then Kevin Powell was asked the same. Both were asked if they were able to vote for President of the United States.
Swensson and Powell explained their challenges filed with the Secretary of State’s office to the judge.
Hatfield held up the Certification of Nomination which Nancy Pelosi signed in 2008 to place Obama’s name on the ballot. The judge asked if it was a “certified copy,” and Hatfield answered that it was. He then read from it, stating that it did not affirm that the candidates met constitutional requirements to serve, while the wording from the Republican National Committee for its candidates did contain that wording.
The judge asked if the documents were from a “United States government source,” and Hatfield answered “Yes, sir, they were.”
Hatfield cited Jablonski’s January 25 letter “indicating that they did not want the proceedings to go forward and did not want to participate.” Hatfield also entered into evidence Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father.
Ken Allen, a resident of Arizona, stood to present the documentation he had received from the State Department after submitting a FOIA request early in 2009, which The Post & Email reported on here. He stated that “Barack Obama Sr.” was “never a citizen.”
At 10:09 a.m. someone said, “Let’s take a short break,” and people stood up and began moving around and talking with one another.
At 10:17 a.m., the court was called back in to order.
Atty. Orly Taitz was called upon to speak. The Georgia registered voter whom she represents, David Farrar, stood and identified himself.
Taitz utilized a projector on the wall to the right of the judge as an aid in her presentation. She then stated that evidence existed that Obama possessed Indonesian citizenship, to which the judge was heard by this writer to say, “That’s not relevant.” Taitz then discussed the court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett and was interrupted by the judge, who said, “Counselor, can you save your argument for the closing?” She then stopped speaking.
Mr. Christopher Strunk of New York then went up to the front of the courtroom to testify, and Taitz began to ask him questions about the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, one of which contains the name “Soebarkah.” Strunk stated, “She wanted that expunged from her record, but we never got that.”
Susan Daniels, Private Investigator from Ohio, then took the stand, and spoke about her investigation which revealed that Obama had reportedly been using a social security number which she contended had not been assigned to him.
Taitz asked Daniels, “What was the social security number attached to your request?” and Daniels read off “042-68-4425.” Daniels said, “In all my years, I’ve never seen anything like this.” She stated that the person who had originally owned the number had been born in 1890.
“First I ran the social security number to check the address, and the same number came up for him in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC. It showed a phone number, and it was always the same number…It would show intermittently ‘August 4, 1961′ and ’1890.’” Daniels stated that she obtained information “directly from the Social Security Administration.”
At 10:30 Mr. Chito Papa took the stand. He stated that he works in the field of Information Technology including Adobe® software.
Taitz asked Papa if the “birth certificate” which “Obama posted online” had flattened layers. ”Did you see one layer or multiple layers? Taitz asked. ”I saw multiple layers,” he answered.
Taitz asked Papa about Obama’s social security number which appeared on his tax return posted on the internet, and Papa stated that the layers had not been flattened. Taitz then thanked Papa for his testimony.
At 10:36 a.m. another witness, Linda Jordan, was called to the stand. Taitz adjusted her Powerpoint presentation by means of a laptop computer and began by asking a question about “E-Verify,” the U.S. government’s system for flagging potential illegal immigrants from working. Jordan stated that she ran Obama’s number through the E-Verify system and said, “When I read it, it was 2011, and it could not verify it. It came back.”
At 10:39 a.m., Douglas Vogt took the stand. Vogt stated that he owns a typesetting company and has been “in the business for 18 years now.”
Taitz asked Vogt if he examined the birth certificate which was posted online, and he said, “Yes, I did.” He stated that “sloping lines” would not be seen if the image had been made from a paper document.
Taitz asked, “Would you expect to see a clear embossed seal on the document?” and Vogt answered, “Yes, I would.” However, he stated that such was not present on Obama’s birth certificate. Regarding the number of Obama’s purported birth record, Vogt stated that “federal regs” require that “all birth certificate numbers have to be sequential, starting on January 1.”
At 10:49, witness John Sampson took the stand. He stated that he has a background in criminal justice, served as a police officer in New York City and worked as an immigration inspector. His background includes working for the INS in the area of “immigration fraud” and he was also a deportation officer. He stated that he has testified in front of “federal grand juries.” He stated that he started his own consulting firm in 2009 and has been self-employed since then.
Taitz asked Sampson about Obama’s social security number, and Sampson said that he “ran” the number 042-68-4425 and that it was assigned to Obama since 1977.
Taitz asked if Sampson had examined the birth certificate, and he said, “Yes.” He raised the issue of the Nordyke twins’ birth certificate, whose numbers were lower than Obama’s even though their birth occurred a day later. He stated that the registrar’s name was different than that on the Nordyke twins’ documents and that it was unlikely that the registrar would have been different in the “same hospital” regarding births one day apart.
Sampson recommended further investigation, including subpoenas and court orders, to obtain more information on the number “042-68-4425.”
Sampson mentioned that Obama has also been known as “Barry Soetoro.”
Taitz asked what Sampson thought needed to be done regarding the questions about Obama’s background, and he recommended asking for an official copy of the SS-5 for his social security number application and the Hawaii Department of Health to see “if he was born in Hawaii.” Sampson stated that an investigation would be “a criminal investigation” through a U.S. attorney’s office. He said that if a person has been found to be impersonating a U.S. citizen, he would be subject to “deportation.”
Shortly thereafter, Sampson’s testimony ended, and Taitz began discussing Obama’s alleged years in Indonesia from 1968-71, during which he was known as “Barry Soetoro.”
“We have another boy who from 1968-69 was in Hawaii,” she said. The judge then said, “Are you testifying? Do you know how?” which brought laughter from the assembly. The judge then said she could discuss the matter during closing arguments. Taitz responded, “I would like to testify,” after which she took the stand.
Taitz stated that “Mr. Obama has resigned from the bar.” The judge asked, “How is that relevant?” Taitz said that it was pertinent because Obama was “hiding his identity.”
“I’m going to ask you to submit your testimony in writing,” the judge said. ”OK,” Taitz said. She then left the stand and spoke from the assembly once again. She stated that “We have clear evidence of fraud and forgery…Mr. Obama has used other last names…” She then stated that of all the lawsuits filed against Obama regarding his eligibility, none were heard on “the merits.” Taitz asked Judge Malihi to order the release of Obama’s records in Hawaii and to hold Obama in “contempt of court” for failing to appear at the hearing.
The judge said, “Thank you” and adjourned the court at 11:12 a.m. Found at: http://gulagbound.com/25486/courtroom-details-of-obamas-126-eligibility-hearing-georgia/
Also see in the comment section of 1/25/2012 of:
Veritas
January 25th, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
- OBAMA’S PLAN FOR AMERICA
by Dr. Laurie Roth, Presidential Candidate
- Press Interview Sunday, Sept. 7th, 2008 with Obama
- “The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like To Teach the World To Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails —perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments…..”