The internet’s most comprehensive compilation of issues regarding the birth of Barack Obama. Direct your friends to this site. Bookmark this website now.

News flash! 

 Obama's footprint on a Certificate of Live Birth obtained by Lucas Smith in Kenya (uploaded Aug 22, 2009).

  Click here.


Is Investigative Journalism Dead, and Is Self-Censorship by the Press Alive? Where are Woodward and Bernstein?

 

Have the courts resolved the citizenship eligibility of Obama? A big resounding, “ No!”

The courts have refused to decide the cases by a full blown trial on the merits. The cases were dismissed on reasons of legal technicalities. Until a trial on the merits is conducted, there will be endless new cases on the same issue because there is no ‘res judicata’ yet.

 
 

If there were a Hollywood movie about a person who became a President of the US without any of the 300 million Americans demanding for his proof of natural born citizenship, or after being sued to show his birth certificate that person refused to do so, or the entire congress and senate refuse to question his citizenship, or the states and federal agents do not lift a finger to produce evidence, or after more than two dozen cases filed the Supreme Court refuses to settle the issue, would you have found that situation possible and the movie credible?

 
 

FAQ ON

BARACK OBAMA’S

HIDDEN BIRTH CERTIFICATE

 

Last updated April 14, 2010

This is where you start if you want a heads up on what this Obama citizenship issue is all about.

 

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth

 

http://tinyurl.com/obamafaq

 

obamabirthfaq@gmail.com

 
 

Do you want to be part of

American history?

 

1. Who is that one person (a judge, a secretary of state, or any government official) who will go down in US history as the one who finally compelled Barack Obama to show legally acceptable proof and evidence that he is a natural born citizen as he alleged in his application form for his candidacy for the position of President of the United States? Or do you simply take Obama at his word? Is this what the rule of law is about?

 

2. And who is that investigative journalist who could finally discover and present the copy the actual birth certificate of Barack Obama?

 

3. And who is that US government worker whistleblower who will be courageous enough to face a possible legal suit for violating privacy laws by coming out in the open, if indeed Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, to prove that Obama has perpetrated fraud on the entire American nation by falsely claiming he is a natural born citizen when he is not? (Somebody in the government, at least in Hawaii, must have actually seen Obama’s 1961 typewritten birth certificate if there is one, or alternatively can testify that there isn’t one, or if there is one from a foreign nation. And anyway, coming out to prevent fraud would likely give him immunity from a suit based on privacy laws. The constitution trumps any privacy law any day.)

 

This is your chance to be etched in the history books for the next 500 years.

 

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth

 

http://tinyurl.com/obamafaq

 

obamabirthfaq@gmail.com

   

 

 
 

This FAQ is a collection of questions and answers from many sources including newsgroups, blogs, emails and not necessarily prepared by us. There are still many questions not included here because of lack of time.

If you have more FAQ, better if you also give the answer to your question, please send to obamabirthfaq@gmail.com .

Instead of the repetitive arguments all over the internet, use this FAQ instead to narrow down the controversy question by question.

This FAQ is meant to guide you in your own quest for truth behind Obama’s mysterious birth certificate.

You don’t have to accept the answers but hopefully you will see both sides of the coin and you will be aware of the issues or questions involved.

 

Some of the FAQ below are about the birth certificate and some are about Obama’s natural born citizenship (being born of a Kenyan father).

Choose the questions that suit your interest.

 

Was this FAQ helpful in making you appreciate the issues involved? If so, please drop us a line.

 

Click on this link to view Obama’s computer-generated SHORT-FORM birth “certification” (not “certificate”).

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/Home/obama-short-form-birth-certificate

 

Click on this link to show that a person born in China was able to obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian birth (Dr. Sun Yat-sen, no less, the Father of Modern China!)

http://sunyatsenhawaii.org/images/doh/dh-1.jpg

 

Click on this link for analysis by an imaging expert showing that even the Short-Form is itself fake and doctored (Dr. Ron Polarik’s site)

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/

 

Click on this link for a comprehensive timeline of Obama’s life

http://colony14.net/id41.html

 

Click on this link for detailed and comprehensive info on Obama’s family, school, colleagues etc.

 http://www.theobamafile.com/

 

Click on this link for updates of court cases on Obama’s citizenship

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

 

Click on this link for some info about Stanley Anne Dunham (his mother)

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/11/contrairimairi-raises-baffling.html

 

Click on this link for some photos of Anne Dunham

 

Click on this link for a possible linkage between Frank Marshall Davis and Obama

http://www.reformation.org/frank-marshall-davis-obama.html

 

Click on this link for updates of the cases filed by Orly Taitz in behalf of Keyes and Lightfoot and others

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

 

Click on this link for daily updates of events surrounding Obama’s citizenship controversy

 http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/

 

Click on this link for an analysis by a lawyer why he believes Obama is not a US citizen at all

 http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1614/pub_detail.asp

 

See more URLs for related websites at the end of this FAQ.

 

If you want your URL to be listed, please email obamabirthfaq@gmail.com

 

 
 

 

The Common Sense Test

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother?

After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen?

This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

 

What is a Natural Born Citizen?

 

Three requisites, all of which must concur, for Natural Born Citizenship eligible for President of the U.S.:

 

1. Father must be US Citizen (either Naturalized or Natural Born)

and

2. Mother must be US Citizen (either Naturalized or Natural Born)

and

3. Must be born in US soil

 

Note: In Statutory Construction, the meaning of the term has to be interpreted according to the usage of the day it was used. At the time when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, everybody knew what is meant by the term “Natural Born Citizen” and they didn’t have to define it in the Constitution itself because the latter is not a dictionary but a contract with the people. Such Contract is enforceable by any citizen bound by it, and therefore any citizen has full legal standing to question the eligibility of the candidate for the President of the U.S.

 

The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212 (note the reference to plural citizens):

 

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

 

John A. Bingham  (the chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution): "Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

 

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth

 

http://tinyurl.com/obamafaq

 

obamabirthfaq@gmail.com

 

 

What do

Barack Obama,

 the first African-American President of the United States,

and

Sun Yat-Sen,

 the first President of the Republic of China

have in common?

 

Yes, they were both born in Hawaii, or so they claim.

 

Click on this link to see Sun Yat-sen’s “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” despite having been born in Guangdong, China.

 

All the more to suspect that Obama was born in Kenya yet obtained the same infamous “Certification” in Hawaii.

 

What a coincidence!

 

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/

 

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/Home/obama-short-form-birth-certificate

   
 

FAQ ON

BARACK OBAMA’S

 

Question 1:

Before I start reading this lengthy FAQ is there a brute force resolution, a Gordian knot solution to this so-called Barack Obama birth certificate controversy? Why all the fuss about his birth?

 

Answer:

1.        Yes, there is a brute resolution.

 

2.        This can be resolved in ten minutes if Barack Obama authorizes the release of a copy of his so-called LONG FORM (or “vault”)  Certificate of Live Birth, that original document that shows where he was born, in what hospital, time and date, the attending doctor, name of parents, whose signatures appear in the document etc..

 

3.        This is called LONG-FORM COLB for the purposes of this FAQ.

 

4.        In all the countries in the world, it is this LONG FORM birth certificate that is the “best evidence” and the “conclusive proof” of birth.

 

5.        In other words, the normal birth certificate that anybody presents when applying to school, for a passport, or for a school age group baseball league.

 

6.       So far Obama has shown only the SHORT FORM (which is only an abstract and contains minimal information), which is a computer-generated “secondary” evidence that is derived out of the original source document. The legal probative value of this Short-Form is practically nil in the courts of law when the information on this document is challenged legally and the challenger demands the “best evidence” which is the LONG FORM. Of course, the original source document, the “primary evidence” document, is the LONG FORM COLB. See Wigmore’s definitive textbook on Evidence.

 

7.        It is this refusal by Barack that is the source of this controversy. Obama must show his proof of eligibility but he doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy, if he is concerned about this privacy. At least he needs to show it, in closed door proceedings,  to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship.

 

 

8.        What’s complicating the issue is that even Barack’s Kenyan grandmother has admitting in a taped interview with an Anabaptist bishop that she witnessed the birth of Barack in Kenya, specifically in Mombasa, an island only 14 square km in size.

 

9.       Finally, since Barack Obama was a British subject or citizen at birth, this fact alone makes Barack a non-natural born citizen, according to the constitutional experts citing law and jurisprudence.

 

10.   Obama doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy. He only needs to show it, in closed door proceedings,  to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship.

 

11.  What would have happened in the old days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American constitution would have considered that hypothetical son a Natural Born citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

12.  Until this practice was stopped in 1972, a person born outside of Hawaii could obtain a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”. This could have happened to Obama as well. Example is the great Chinese hero, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen who is the “Father of Modern China.” A website dedicated to him shows a copy of this Certificate of Hawaiian Birth despite having been born in China!! See Sun Yat-Sen’s Certificate here:

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/Home/obama-short-form-birth-certificate

 

13.   Because of the absence of Obama’s Long-Form or Vault Birth Certificate only the courts can ascertain the citizenship of Obama.

14.   Scenario One: Barack was born in Kenya to a US citizen mother who was less than 19 years old and a father who was not a US citizen.

Status: Then Obama is NOT even a U.S. citizen at all, according to the law existing in 1961 his year of birth. (see full discussion below)

 

15.   Scenario Two: Barack was born in Hawaii but his father was British anyway.

Status: Then Barack is a Citizen but NOT a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the US Constitution, law, and jurisprudence. (see full discussion below.)

 

16.   This is a legitimate legal issue that needs to be settled once and for all by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). But instead of a trial on the merits, the courts have raised technical issues of proper standing of the plaintiffs. For the lawyers out there, be aware that so far there has been no trial on the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship. If a citizen has no standing to protect the Constitution, then who has?

 

Back

 

Question 2:

Barack Obama is on the ballot of every state. Certainly, this means that he filed his candidacy and made allegations in his candidacy in all these states that he is a natural born citizen. And certainly, the government agencies involved did not merely take him at his word but required his proof of natural born citizenship. Certainly, all these applications in each state have attachments proving the same. How old is he? Is he at least 35? Was he born of US parents on US soil? All these information are understood to have been given to all the government agencies who accepted his candidacy. So how come citizens are challenging Barack’s qualifications? Isn’t this the job of the government agencies to challenge the allegations of all candidates?

 

Answer:

This can only happen in the movies.

 

Incredibly, the answer is that all government officials and agencies have been gullible enough to accept everything written by any candidate without requiring proof.

 

Even a person like Roger Calero who is obviously, in plain sight, is not Natural Born (he was born in Nicaragua) managed to get his name on the ballots of five states. Incredible!

 

And now, that many citizens have been challenging Obama to prove his natural born citizenship, the government officials refused to do so on their own initiative, and even made representations in the court cases that they are not supposed to do it.

 

(The officials do not want to admit that they did not do their jobs of verifying Obama’s claim that he is a Natural Born Citizen! They could be in jail for malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance.)

 

This is a huge embarrassment for the most powerful nation in the world. That we are victims of a failure of the entire government machinery to verify statements made by candidates.

 

It’s a case of “somebody should have checked whether Obama’s claim to natural born citizenship is true but look, it’s not me who should be doing it” syndrome.

 

Back

 

Question 3:

Does Obama’s eligibility for President of the US (POTUS) rest entirely on the facts found in his LONG FORM certificate of live birth, or in what country he was born?

 

Answer:

No, that is the contention of the cases being filed.

 

The Berg vs. Obama case (see FAQ below) is about proof of citizenship by showing the actual LONG-FORM.

 

The Donofrio vs. Wells case goes directly to a publicly available fact that Obama’s father was Kenyan (British subject or citizen) at the time of Barack’s birth. Donofrio maintains that this alone makes Obama a non-natural born citizen.

 

These cases are just two of the five cases are with the US Supreme Court regarding Obama’s citizenship.

 

Some of the FAQ below are about the birth certificate and some are about Obama’s natural born citizenship (being born of a Kenyan father).

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

Back

Question 4:

What is this Barack Obama birth certificate controversy all about?

 

Answer:

The purpose of this FAQ is to give detailed explanations as to each factor or bone of contention regarding Barack Obama’s birth circumstances.

 

But instead of delving directly into details, here is an overview of the contentions. Throughout this FAQ we will provide links and attachments.

 

This overview of the contentions should give you an idea of what questions to ask and how to form your own conclusions. At this stage, view the forest not the leaves.

 

1.        There are many cases currently in the courts questioning the circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth. Five are now with the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

 

2.        One was by Philip Berg was a former Deputy Atty General of Pennsylvania, and a Democratic Party leader (same party as Obama!). Not an ordinary lawyer.

 

3.       The case of Donofrio vs. Wells is very interesting because Donofrio maintains that just by being born to a Kenyan (British) father, Barack is not a “natural born” citizen. (The US Supreme Court has denied Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases action without a discussion on the merits. Therefore the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship has not been settled yet by the SCOTUS, leaving the issue open for more suits until resolved on the merits of the issues.)

 

4.        Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu but he or his own relatives gave different names of hospitals in different interviews (Queen’s Medical vs. Kapiolani, which is which?)

 

5.        Obama has shown only the SHORT FORM of his birth. Acdg to Berg, anybody can be registered in Hawaii at that time 1961 with certain conditions. The SHORT FORM is computer generated. Any law student knows that this is not the “best evidence” under the “best evidence” rule of the Rules of Evidence. The SHORT FORM is merely an abstract of the LONG FORM. The SHORT is merely secondary evidence, while the LONG FORM is the primary evidence.

 

6.        Berg and the others who have filed cases want to see the LONG FORM or vault version which shows the name of the doctor, the parents, the weight, the thumb marks etc.

 

7.        Obama refused. Why does it take a US Supreme Court petition to show the LONG FORM? The SHORT FORM has been used by OBAMA for a long time but now when asked to show the LONG FORM he refuses. And yet he ran for President and even won. Why is he refusing to settle his citizenship issue?

 

8.        Is OBAMA a natural born or a naturalized? Only Natural Born citizens are qualified.

 

9.        Yes, OBAMA's US Citizen mother is a US Citizen but if Obama was born abroad such as Kenya, and her mother was only 18 at the time of birth, then according to US laws in 1961, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

 

10.   In several interviews (up to you to believe it) Obama's paternal grandmother recounted how Obama was born in Kenya, she was even in the delivery room. During those interviews, apparently, Obama's relatives in Kenya didn’t realize that NATURAL BORN citizenship was required of Obama in his quest for Presidency. They didn’t realize how damaging that information is to Barack.

 

11.   One interview involved a Baptist bishop and minister and they recorded it and executed notarized affidavits for it.

 

12.   Supposedly, Obama's mother was refused a flight from Kenya to US because she was pregnant, so she delivered Obama in Kenya first.

 

13.   Some claim to have certified true copies that Barack was born in Coast  Provincial Hospital in Mombasa Kenya at 7:24pm Aug 4, 1961.

 

14.   Obama's half-brother and half sister were supposed to be there too during the delivery.

 

15.   Obama has not shown his own document that gave such details of his supposed birth in Honolulu.

 

16.   The Hawaii State government refused to allow anybody to view the LONG FORM.

 

17.   An Imam from Mombasa Kenya was said to have arrived in UK bringing with him the documents of the Mosque archive that blessed Obama when he was born. The Imam is the grandson of the Imam who blessed Obama. The Imam is supposedly requesting UK asylum bec he took the documents from the Mosque and feared for his life. (A “conspiracy theory” from African Press International). There is no way of verifying these statements of course, so it remains a conspiracy theory, but these speculations can be quieted down by a simple showing of the original birth certificate of Obama showing the name of doctor, the signature of parents, the time and name of hospital, weight at birth. So far, Obama has shown a computer-generated abstract.

 

18.   Berg's case was dismissed in the lower court because he lacked standing (not the proper party to raise the issue). Berg is contesting this. If a voter cannot be certain about the qualifications of the US candidate, who can? Because Berg’s case was dismissed on a technicality (lack of proper standing), there was no trial on the merits. Who has the legal duty to determine if a presidential candidate is qualified as he allegedly claims?

 

19.   Why isn’t Obama, the champion of truth in the most powerful nation on earth, being truthful by showing who is the doctor who delivered him, what was his weight, and who signed his birth certificate? What hospital was he born in?

 

20.   Even in Third World countries, you cannot even enroll in Grade 1 without an authenticated birth certificate (LONG FORM) show all the data including the weight, the doctor, the hospital. Why not the same transparency from the US president elect? This is a question of constitutional qualification and therefore a legitimate issue.

 

21.   A film producer (School of Rosary Films) has offered US$1 million to anybody who can present a US SC authenticated LONG FORM birth certificate of OBAMA.

 

22.   OBAMA can claim this $1million by allowing his jobless homeless half-brother in Kenya to show Obama's LONG FORM. His brother will get the million dollars, or Obama can give it to charity.

 

23.   All of these are rumors which could be quieted down once Obama releases his LONG FORM birth certificate.

 

24.   Any student of law, and a student of investigative journalism should be curious: who is the doctor that delivered Obama, in what hospital, at what time, and what was his weight, and who of his parents signed the birth certificate? This is from the LONG FORM, not the computer generated SHORT FORM.

 

25.   Note: This issue has nothing to do with Obama's skills as President of the US, nor his race. Just imagine yourself as a law student or an investigative journalism student: Wouldn’t you want the best evidence - the LONG FORM certificate of birth of Obama?

 

26.   If you are the President of the US, as chief enforcer of the laws, the law should not be used to cover the truth, it should be used to uncover the truth.

 

27.   These are the bones of contention, and as you read this FAQ, keep the above issues in mind.

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

Back

Question 5:

What is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?

Answer:

Three requisites, all of which must concur, for Natural Born Citizenship eligible for President of the U.S.:

 

1. Father must be US Citizen (either Naturalized or Natural Born)

and

2. Mother must be US Citizen (either Naturalized or Natural Born)

and

3. Must be born in US soil

 

Note: In Statutory Construction, the meaning of the term has to be interpreted according to the usage of the day it was used. At the time when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, everybody knew what is meant by the term “Natural Born Citizen” and they didn’t have to define it in the Constitution itself because the latter is not a dictionary but a contract with the people. Such Contract is enforceable by any citizen bound by it, and therefore any citizen has full legal standing to question the eligibility of the candidate for the President of the U.S.

 

The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212 (note the reference to plural “citizens”):

 

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

 

John A. Bingham  (the chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution): "Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

 

Question 6:

What are the possible birth situations that give rise to a citizenship question?

 Answer:

To properly analyze the citizenship of a person, we have created these situations for the courts to decide, ultimately the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS).

 

Situation 1:

The father is a Mexican citizen. The mother is a Mexican citizen. Months prior to birth, the parents illegally cross the border into the US. The child is subsequently born  in US territories in 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

 

Situation 2:

The father is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The mother is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The child is born outside USA territories in 2009.  Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

 

Situation 3:

The father is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The mother is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The child is born within USA territories in 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

 

Situation 4:

The father is an immigrant to the U.S. but  is not yet a U.S. citizen. The mother is an immigrant to the U.S. but  is not yet a U.S. citizen. The child is born within USA territories in 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

 

Situation 5:

The father is a British citizen. The mother is a US citizen. The child is born within USA territories in year 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

 

Situation 6:

The father is a British citizen. The mother is a US citizen. The child is born outside USA territories in year 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

 

Situation 7:

The father is a British citizen. The mother is a US Citizen mother who is not yet 19 years old. The child is born in Kenya in 1961. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?  Note that the law in 1961 differs from the law in 2009.

 

Situation 8:

The father is a British citizen. The mother is a US Citizen mother who is not yet 19 years old. The child is born in Hawaii in 1961. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)? Note that the law in 1961 differs from the law in 2009.

 

Back

Question 7:

Does it matter if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not?

 

Answer:

Even IF Obama produces proof that he was born in the United States, according to Leo Donofrio's case, he is STILL INELIGIBLE because he was a British Citizen at birth. 

 

(The US Supreme Court has denied Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases action without a discussion on the merits. Therefore the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship have not been settled yet by the SCOTUS, leaving the issue open for more suits until resolved on the merits of the issues.)

 

This is already an established FACT. 

 

Obama held British Citizenship from birth to the age of 21. 

 

Obama was ineligible to run for President the second he was born, regardless of where he was born because his father was British. 

The framers of Constitution of the United States did NOT want somebody with dual citizenship to be President, unless they were alive during the signing of the Constitution.  This is clear constitutional interpretation. 

 

Obama was NOT alive then. 

 

The question is, "Will the Justices interpret the Constitution correctly the way the Framers had intended?"

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya..

 

Question 8:

Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, but his mother was an American citizen, therefore, Barack is a natural born citizen, regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or in Hawaii. So what’s the fuss all about? Surely, Barack is a natural born citizen!

 

Answer:

Very good question, and perfectly logical reasoning. And this is where many people are confused.

 

But Barack was born of a Kenyan father and US citizen mother.

 

There are two lines of argument here.

 

First, in Donofrio vs. Well case pending with the Supreme Court, Donofrio maintains that this fact of having one parent who is not a US citizen makes Obama a non-natural born citizen. (Although Obama could be Native Born but not necessarily Natural Born.

 

(The US Supreme Court has denied Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases action without a discussion on the merits. Therefore the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship has not been settled yet by the SCOTUS, leaving the issue open for more suits until resolved on the merits of the issues.)

 

 

The second line of argument that is being followed in Berg vs. Obama (pending with the Supreme Court on issues of proper standing of the petitioner, not trial on  the merits.)

 

The following is the argument being followed by Berg and others.

 

In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. "Physical presence" was different from the concept of "residence" which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.

 

In 1961, when Obama was born, just by having one parent as an American citizen does not automatically grant citizenship to the child (not even a “naturalized” status, how much more for “natural born.”

 

The law in effect at the time of Obama’s birth was different than it is now.

 

Barack father was an alien being a Kenyan citizen. Barack’s mother was an American citizen. However, since she was only 18 years old at the time Barack was born, then she did not pass on US citizenship to Barack. Not even a naturalized status.

 

This is the contention of Philip Berg in his case that is now pending with the US Supreme Court.

 

Don’t forget that this was the law at the time of Barack’s birth, and not the law today.

 

Thus, being born in Kenya is a very very important factor in determining whether Barack is natural born or not.

 

And it is also very critical to inspect his LONG FORM CLOB because the SHORT FORM does not reflect this.

 

Plus, do not forget Obama’s relatives and many in Kenya know this as common knowledge that Barack was born in Kenya.

 

Later in this FAQ, we will tackle a Baptist minister who interviewed Barack’s Kenyan grandmother, and later on interviewed the Civil Registrar of Mombasa, Kenya who confirmed the existence of Ann Dunham’s delivery of Barack in Kenya.

 

On December 24, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the "1952 Statute") became effective. As under the previous statute, where both parents were U.S. citizens, one parent would have to have resided in the United States prior to the child's birth in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. The meaning of residence previously applied under the 1940 Statute was essentially the same as under the 1952 Statute.

 

In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. "Physical presence" was different from the concept of "residence" which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.

 

The physical presence requirement was intended to preclude extended absences from the United States during the required period. However, it was found to be too restrictive. In 1966, Congress passed an amendment which, for children born on or after December 24, 1952, permitted the transmitting U.S. citizen parent to count presence abroad in the following capacities towards the physical presence requirement:

 

   1. honorable service in the United States Armed Forces;

   2. employment by the United States Government;

   3. employment by an international organization with which the United States is associated; or

   4. physical presence abroad as a dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person employed in one of the above categories.

 

The Immigration and Nationality Amendments of November 14, 1986 further liberalized the transmitting U.S. citizen parent's physical presence requirements. For children born on or after November 14, 1986, a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent would acquire U.S. citizenship if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years.

 

Under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the act in effect at the time of Barack Obama's birth, the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

 

    (7) "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided that any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph."

 

This proviso in this act does not apply to Barack Obama, because his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, was not yet 19 years of age at the time of his birth.

 

Since she was only 18 at the time of Mr. Obama's birth, she would not have passed citizenship on to Mr. Obama. In 1961, citizenship could only be passed on to a child where one parent was an alien should the citizen parent have resided in the U.S. for 10 years, five of those over the age of 14.

 

Just having a mother as citizen does not mean automatic citizenship. That is why the LONG FORM of the CLOB is very important being called the "best evidence" in law. The passports, the SHORT FORM are not the best evidence but mere secondary evidence.

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya..

 

Back

 

Question 9:

Where was Barack Obama born?

 

Answer:

Barack Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961 and shows a computer-generated SHORT FORM which is a “certification” of live birth but not the actual “certificate” of live birth.

 

This claim has been challenged in several court cases but Obama adamantly refuses to show his LONG FORM which is the real birth certificate.

 

The basis for this challenge is that there are indications that Barack was born in Mombasa Kenya. One of these if Barack’s own still energetic paternal grandmother  who on a few occasions, including a taped interview as current as Oct 16, 2008, that she was present at the hospital when Obama was born.

 

More FAQ on alleged Obama’s birth in Kenya, follows.

 

Back

 

Question 10:

Granting that Obama was born in Honolulu, as he claimed, in which hospital was he born?

 

Answer:

Nobody is certain as to what hospital Obama was born.

 

First Answer: Queen’s Medical Center Honolulu

Source: Obama’a own half-sister Maya Soetoro (in 2004)

 

Charter School’s The Rainbow Edition Newsletter, Vol 2. Issue 3, November 2004 written by Bennett Guira, a colleague of Maya Soetoro.

 

 Barack Obama was born on August 4,

1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in

Honolulu, Hawaii. Obama lived here with his

parents Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham

until they divorced when he was two. Obama

moved back to Hawaii when he was ten and

lived with his grandmother Madelyn Dunham

and half-sister of our very own, Maya Soetoro.

They both attended Punahou School together

when they both lived here.

Ms. Soetoro explained, “He’s my

brother. We share the same mother, though our

fathers are different. His father was Barack

Obama Sr., a Kenyan economist who met our

mother at the East West Center. My father was

our mother’s second husband after she divorced

Obama. Soetoro was from Indonesia and in the

late 1960s the family moved to the island of

Java where I was born.”

 

Click on this link to get a copy of the newsletter.

Second answer: Kapiolani Medical Center

 

Second Answer: Kapiolani Medical Center

Source: Maya Soetoro (Obama’s half-sister); fours after the Rainbow interview

 

On Febuary 18, 2008, in Vol. 13, Issue 49 of Star Bulletin,  in an article by Laurie Au:

 

Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who has been

campaigning aggressively in Hawaii and on the mainland,

shared stories of her older brother's childhood as a way to

connect to local voters.

"This is a place that's been relatively unchanged for him, and so

much of who he is was born here," Soetoro-Ng told a crowd of

about 200 people eating "OBAMAsadas."

"He was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women &

Children, two blocks up from where our grandmother still

resides ... the place where he used to stick orange peels under

his bed, where it got all dried out and ... nasty."

 

Click on this link to get a copy of the news item.

 

What is the real answer? Nobody knows for sure because this name of hospital is not found in the SHORT-FORM but only in the LONG-FORM.

 

The SHORT-FORM is not the mate proof of birth or citizenship. To settle this, Obama will have give his LONG-FORM.

 

But so far he has refused to do so.

 

Back

 

Question 11:

Are there indirect proofs that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?

 

Answer:

There is one but with no legal probative value at all.

 

The World News Daily (WND) found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."

 

In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.

 

The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

 

But that advertisement has no legal probative value at all and is not the proof that is acceptable to the court when one claims he is qualified to run as presidential candidate.

 

Back

Question 12:

If it is true that Obama was born in Kenya, then how come he has a registration of birth in Hawaii?

 

Answer:

Yes, Obama has a registration of birth in Hawaii and so does Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the first president of the Republic of China. And yet Dr. Sun Yat-sen was born in China and came to Hawaii at age 13. 

 

It was that easy to get a certificate of Hawaiian birth until this practice was stopped in 1972. That is why we need to see Baracks original typewritten 1961 Certificate of Live Birth showing weight, hospital, doctor, witnesses, signature of parents.

 

Registration of live births under the vague laws in Hawaii in 1961 is not proof of birth in Hawaii at all.

 

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows “registration” of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

 

The only way to know where Obama was actually born is to view Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.

 

Registration of birth is not the same as Certificate of Live Birth (LONG FORM) because as mentioned earlier Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

 

Registration of live births under the vague laws in Hawaii in 1961 is not proof of birth in Hawaii at all. Read the laws on the books in Hawaii for registration of births in 1961.

 

This is what the law actually allowed in 1961.

 

"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."

 

See links below for more about the relevant Hawaiian law. A computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) issued in Hawaii is not acceptable to even their own courts as conclusive proof of birth in Hawaii. Under Hawaiian law in 1961, a child could be born anywhere in the world and have the birth registered in Hawaii by the mother after the birth, with true or false information, without any third party independent verification of said "facts" entered on the form by the mother, upon her returning to Hawaii using this law on the books in 1961.

 

The following is the actual link to the Hawaii statute.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

 

 

Back

 

Question 13:

But the Hawaii Director of Health has confirmed that Obama’s original birth certificate is with them! So that’s the end of it!!!

Answer:

Think like a lawyer.

 

Focus on what the Health Director is saying, and also on what she is NOT saying.

 

Here’s the statement:

 

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

 

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

 

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

 

Fukino said that no state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently from any other.

 

Having read the above, notice:

1.     Fukino is NOT stating that the original birth certificate is a US birth certificate.

2.     Fukino is NOT stating that is not a Kenyan birth certificate.

3.     Fukino is only stating that a birth certificate (which could be Kenyan) is filed in accordance with the rules.

4.     Fukino is NOT saying that Obama’s record is not filed according to Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 that allows “registration” of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

5.     Fukino’s statement, therefore, does not rule out that Obama could have a Kenyan birth certificate but still filed according to Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 that allows “registration” of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

6.     Fukino’s statement, also does not rule out registration of birth of a child born outside the US but registered in Hawaii.

That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.

 

That brief comment does not affirm whether the birth certificate in the “record” is a Certification of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.

 

In Hawaii, a “Certificate” of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a “Certification” of Live Birth.

 

For births prior to 1972, a Certification of Live Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.

 

For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.

 

The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. 

 

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy of the original vault Copy.

 

Back

 

Question 14:

Is there a difference between “Certificate” and Certification” of Live Birth?

 

Answer:

The computer-generated “Certification” is classified as a secondary evidence whose legal probative value can be challenged by procuring the source of the information which is the “Certificate” typewritten in 1961 which, according to the Rules of Evidence is the primary evidence, and therefore has legal probative value that is the “best evidence” following the “best evidence rule.”

 

In Hawaii, a “Certificate” of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a “Certification” of Live Birth.

 

For births prior to 1972, a Certification of Live Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.

 

For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.

 

The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii.

 

Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. 

 

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy of the original vault Copy.

 

Back

 

Question 15:

Hawaii, one of our states of the Union, the United States of America:  Can they be obligated by a higher authority to present the vault copy?

Answer:

Yes.

First, as part of the electoral process, anybody who is obligated to accept the application of candidacy of any candidate has the power to require any candidate to show the legal proof of whatever he alleges in his application form.

 

If Obama files his candidacy, the authority accepting that application form can demand the best evidence of proof of natural born citizenship. It would be laughable even to first year law students for Obama to submit a computer-generated form (SHORT FORM) as legal proof of birth.

 

But how come nobody has checked Obama’s LONG FORM?

 

This is a case of “somebody should have checked it but it’s not me” syndrome.

 

As the question of whether the State of Hawaii itself could be compelled to release it, the answer is yes.

 

Any court could compel the Hawaii authorities via a subpoena duces tecum. (A subpoena to produce the document.)

 

Amazingly, no court case has tried this case on the merits. The courts seemed to have done a Pontius Pilate stance and questioned the standing of the petitioners/complainants. Why?

 

No court seems to touch the actual merits of the case with a ten-foot pole, and the courts have amazingly dismissed the cases on technical issues.

 

The courts probably do not realize this could be the case of the century.

 

 

Question 16:

Is it true that Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, the First President of the Republic of China, a great Chinese hero obtained his own “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?”

 

Answer:

Yes, it is true! A person who was born outside of the USA could obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.

 

Born in China but has a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth". No less than the Father of Modern China, the great hero, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen!!!

 

See? This could be the same case for Obama!!!

 

Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, the First President of the Republic of China, a great Chinese hero obtained his own “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.

 

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/Home/obama-short-form-birth-certificate

 

This was the Application of Sun Yat-Sen and later he obtained the beautiful printed Certificate of Hawaiian Birth above.

 

In this Typewritten Certificate of Hawaiian Birth dated March 14, 1904, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen signed an affidavit that he was born in Hawaii on Nov. 24,  1870 (in reality he was born in China in 1866).

 

Of course, this is not true bec Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, was born in China.

 

Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866, to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county , Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau).

 

After receiving a few years of local school, at age thirteen, Sun went to live with his elder brother, Sun Mei, in Honolulu.

 

Sun Mei, who was fifteen years Sun Yat-sen's senior, had emigrated to Hawaii as a laborer and had become a prosperous merchant. Though Sun Mei was not always supportive of Sun's later revolutionary activities, he supported his brother financially, allowing Sun to give up his professional career.

 

Sun Yat-sen studied at the prestigious Iolani School where he learned English, mathematics and science. Originally unable to speak the English language, Sun Yat-sen picked up the language so quickly that he received a prize for outstanding achievement in English from King David Kalakaua.

 

He became a citizen of the United States and was issued an American passport. It is unclear whether or not he maintained his original citizenship as a subject of the Qing empire.

 

After attending Iolani School in 1882,[2] Sun enrolled in Oahu College (now Punahou School) for further studies for one semester, from which he graduated.

 

He was soon sent home to China as his brother was becoming afraid that Sun Yat-sen was about to embrace Christianity. While at Iolani, he befriended Tong Phong, who later founded the First Chinese-American Bank.

 

Back

 

Question 17:

What are the reasons given by Obama or his supporters for refusing to give the LONG FORM when a critical position such as Presidency is at stake?

 

The LONG-FORM of the CLOB of any citizen in the US is produced very easily when applying for a job or a membership in a golf club, or entering school.

Answer:

A. That the SHORT FORM is enough; (Note: The Short-Form is a computer-generated abstract. When questioned, the government officials concerned, or the courts  must see the source document which is the LONG-FORM.)

 

B. That the LONG FORM is covered by his privacy (Note: Obama ran for office, it is his duty to show he is eligible, not the other way around)

 

C. That OBAMA is unfairly being singled out to present LONG FORM when others are not required to do so. (Note: McCain presented his Long-Form birth certificate)

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

Back

 

Question 18:

Is the SHORT FORM of the CLOB enough for Obama to prove his natural born citizenship for the very powerful position of President of the US?

 

Answer:

Obama’s supporters say, “Yes.”

 

But others say, “No” by reason of the Best Evidence Rule.

 

Under the Rules of Evidence, Obama must follow the “best evidence rule.”

 

The best evidence for proof of birth is the original typewritten LONG-FORM Certificate of Live Birth (CLOB) prepared in 1961 and not some computer-generated form.

 

For evidentiary purposes, the SHORT FORM of the CLOB is merely prima facie but not the conclusive proof of birth.

 

The Short Form is the secondary evidence because it is sourced out of an original document which is the Long Form.

 

So which is the best evidence - the “derived” document or the “source” document?

 

The mere fact that the short form is DERIVED out of some other document means that the source document is the Best Evidence.

 

The proof of birth is the LONG FORM or “vault” copy of the birth certificate.

 

The document that shows the weight at birth, the doctor the hospital the REAL PROOF OF BIRTH that is considered by law as the BEST EVIDENCE.

 

The ''short form'' and the ''long form'' do not have the same probative value.

 

We cannot just rely on Obama’s word that he is qualified, otherwise, that would result into an absurdity where the highest of office of land is occupied by a person who may not be qualified and does not show the LONG FORM proof of birth.

 

The preponderance of evidence and whether Obama’s privacy overrules a Constitutional requirement is a judicial question best determined by a trial on the merits.

 

Besides, if he is not compelled to produce his LONG FORM birth certificate, what prevents fraudulent people from falsely claiming to be natural born when they are not?

 

Obama is not being singled out. Every candidate will be required to show ultimate proof of birth as a requirement especially when challenged by a citizen.

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

Back

 

Question 19:

Isn’t Obama’s SHORT FORM of CLOB a conclusive proof of citizenship?

 

Answer:

From Ronald B. Keys, JD, PhD // Oct 17, 2008

It is axiomatic in the rules of evidence, that he who states the affirmative of an issue bears the burden of proof or burden of persuasion.

 

Senator Obama has satisfied his initial, burden of proof, meeting sufficient, prima facie requirements of citizenship for the Office of President and for his democratic party.

 

But, this is a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION, requiring that he step forward, NOW, with CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, to shift it into a CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION.

 

A rebuttable presumption is that which may be REBUTTED BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE and CHALLENGE.

 

It has been challenged in court, now.

 

Senator and presidential democratic nominee, Obama, as a graduate attorney and licensed by the State of Illinois, has been trained in the RULES OF EVIDENCE, passed the Illinois Bar, and knows all of this.

 

Attorneys are trained in this.

 

Why is he not coming forward with sufficient and better evidence of citizenship to shift his CITIZENSHIP issue into a CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY, CORRECTNESS, VERIFICATION and CONFIRMATION?

 

Why? Where is the truth and what is the truth?

Dated Oct. 17th, 2008 Ronald B. Keys, JD, PhD Plantation, Fl., USA

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

Back

 

 

Question 20:

Is a SHORT-FORM birth certificate acceptable for applying a US Passport?

 

Answer:

No. Here is a notice from the US govt.

 

--- start of quote ---

STEP 2: Submit Evidence of U.S. Citizenship

 

    When applying for a U.S. passport in person, evidence of U.S. citizenship must be submitted with Form DS-11. All documentation submitted as citizenship evidence will be returned to you. These documents will be delivered with your newly issued U.S. passport or in a separate mailing.

 

Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):

 

·        Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport

·        Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*

·        check box Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth

·        Naturalization Certificate

·        Certificate of Citizenship

 

        *A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

 

    NOTE: If you do not have primary evidence of U.S. citizenship or your U.S. birth certificate does not meet the requirements, please see Secondary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship.

--- end of quote ---

 

Back

Question 21:

Read the decision from the court of Virginia. It ruled that there's no material difference between the long form and the short form. The fallacy in your reasoning is that you assume the long form to be the best evidence and the short form to be secondary evidence, when in fact you have not established this to be the case. The short form is not simply a facsimile or reproduction of the long form.

 

Answer:

That decision of the Virginia court needs to be reviewed by the Supreme Court… if indeed it treats short form as the same in probative value as long form. (Go to  the end of this “answer” about this so-called Virginia decision).

 

The Short Form is the secondary evidence because it is sourced out of an original document which is the Long Form.

 

So which is the best evidence - the “derived” document or the “source” document?

 

In accounting forensics, the auditor has to look at the original receipt when such accounting summary is being questioned. Back to the source document.

 

When a doctor reviews the findings of another doctor, the former needs to see the original EKG chart rather than rely on the conclusions of the other doctor. Back to the source document.

 

When an election is being contested, the recount goes back to the original ballots. Back to the source document.

 

The mere fact that the short form is “DERIVED” out of some other document means that the “SOURCE” document, which is the LONG FORM, is the Best Evidence.

 

The proof of birth is the LONG FORM or “vault” copy of the birth certificate.

 

The document that shows the weight at birth, the doctor the hospital the REAL PROOF OF BIRTH that is considered by law as the BEST EVIDENCE...

 

Any court ruling that does not examine that document in court as evidence is not complete.

 

In short, nobody had proved that Obama is a natural born. All your arguments are based on Mr. This and Mr. That of Hawaii Health this and that.

 

Zero base - start with the basic: the proof of birth..

 

This is the search for the ultimate proof of natural born citizenship required, not by an ordinary law but by the constitution itself, upon which all laws must be based.

 

 

New Development…………… Hoax!!!!

ladyhawke112 | Nov 17, 2008 | Reply

 

This case was a complete hoax written by a poster named Wild Bill at obamacrimes.com.

 

Unless you can site a case number and/or post a link to a Virginia court site, you should admit this.

 

The slightest bit of research would have helped prevent this embarrassment.

 

This confirms the very questionable legal argument of the alleged case. It is a hoax, after all.

 

Wild Bill files suit in Virginia

This case is kind of funny.  To begin with I can't find out WHO this Wild Bill is.  Hard to find any information on this on the internet.  I keep finding the same two letters and nobody to vouch for them.  The funny thing is that this is the only case that seems to get answered in addition to being thrown out.  There's some pretty compelling arguements, but like I said, nobody is coming out and endorsing it, that I can find.

 

 

    *

      October 22, Wild Bill files case

          o

             Wild Bill, apparently wanting to remain anonymous, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus

          o

            Letter from wild bill found at PeoplePassions.org

    *

      November 3, Virginia State Court throws case out

          o

            State argues declares the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president

          o

            State answer issues raise regarding Obama's citizenship

          o

            Letter from Wild Bill found all over the internet

 

 

Since I've posted this, I'm still getting feedback that this case didn't really happen.  I can't verify any of this.  I don't have time.  If anybody can get me some conclusive information on this case, that would be good.

 

November 15, 2008 - I recieved an email today from attorney that is really in the know and she also has not been able to discover any concrete information on this case.  There is alot of speculation that  none of this actually happened.

 

I recieved the following email regarding this case:

 

 

 

Message:

RE: WILD BILL CASE

 

I too believe that this case is a "fake case" based on the following:

 

1. I conducted multiple searches for the case at http://wasdmz2.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/circuit.html -- Using a variety of names, including Board of Elections, Elections, Election, etc. -- and no case was reported.

 

2. I contacted Judge Stout's Office (the judge in the case, per Wild Bill. (Info at http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/circuit/Richmond/home.html). The clerk there could find no record of the case in the docket.

 

3. I contacted two local Richmond newspapers, with all the info available. There was no subsequent report on the case. Given that at least local news has reported on all similar cases, I find it very hard to believe that local Richmond news would not report on such a substantial opinion.

 

============

While you and I may have drawn different conclusions about the "facts," I believe that we both seek the truth and, therefore, provide this research - which you can verify yourself - for your consideration.

 

Back

 

Question 22:

Releasing the long form will do more harm than good. It violates the privacy of Obama's health record (protected by HIPAA law). It will expose his parents to ridicule (for example, what if they were incestuous, or what if Obama was the product of rape?). What does this information have to do with establishing citizenship? It's totally irrelevant. It only satisfies your voyeuristic appetite.

 

 

Answer:

Obama doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy. He only needs to show it, in closed door proceedings,  to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship. His privacy will not be violated.

 

There is a conflict between the right to privacy and the proof of natural born citizenship.

 

Surely, the candidate has the burden to prove he is qualified, the people cannot just rely on his word, or on his scanned copy of a computer-generated SHORT FORM.

 

On the contrary, the LONG FORM is very relevant. It is the legally accepted conclusive proof of birth according to the Rules of Evidence.

 

The right of privacy of the individual (with respect to his proof of citizenship) is ipso facto waived in favor of proving that he is constitutionally qualified for run for the Presidency which requires him to be a natural born citizen.

 

When a candidate runs for public office he files an application for candidacy, and this is a public instrument for review by the public.

 

When the office requires a specific requirement which in this case is “natural born citizenship,” then the candidate must prove he is qualified.

 

The burden of proof lies with the candidate. In case of doubt as to the candidate’s qualifications, the latter must provide the evidence, the best evidence.

 

The best evidence of proof of birth is the LONG FORM or vault certificate which is the actual document signed by doctor, the parents or witnesses giving the time of birth, the weight at birth, the hospital where he was born.

 

The SHORT FORM, while useful in most instance, is still a secondary evidence and not the primary or best evidence of birth.

 

The SHORT FORM is a computer-generated document and can be assailed anytime when a proper inquiry is required. The SHORT FORM is a “derived” document. It is derived from the LONG FORM or vault copy.

 

The filing of candidacy being public, the supporting documents such as proof of natural born citizenship must be provided and also becomes public. The private individual, by running for public office, ipso facto, waives his privacy with respect to the specific instrument that proves his natural born citizenship.

 

We cannot just rely on his word that he is qualified, otherwise, that would result into an absurdity where the highest of office of land is occupied by a person who may not be qualified but does not show the LONG FORM proof of birth.

 

His other private files can remain private.

 

Back

 

 

Question 23:

Releasing the long form also sets the bad precedent whereby every voter (who must be a US citizen to vote) will now be questioned as to his legitimacy and will now be required to dig up his long form prior to voting. This can be used to disenfranchise millions of minority voters. Imagine in California where there are so many immigrants. Many are naturalized US citizens, and their kids are natural born citizens. They will have to dig up their long forms to prove their citizenship status before they can vote. In doing so, they will be exposing their confidential health information to the public. This will intimidate potential voters and keep them from voting. Anti-immigrant politicians can move to question the votes of these people and steal the election.

 

Answer:

Non-sequitur. It does not follow. This is a fallacious argument.

 

The question is not about VOTERS being asked to prove being natural born. Your analogy is incorrect.

 

The point is about a candidate for the most powerful position in the world that requires the President to be a natural born citizen as required by the constitution.

 

As soon as the candidate provides his best evidence of proof of birth, which is the LONG FORM or vault certificate, then nobody can question that anymore.

 

Except where the LONG FORM was simulated or fraudulent in the first place, and evidence is given that indeed the LONG FORM was obtained with fraud. Example, is a case where a grandmother simulates birth and claims to be the mother of the newborn when in fact it is her teenage daughter who gave birth.

 

It must be noted again that the SHORT FORM is a computer generated form and not the best evidence of proof of birth.

 

All that Obama has to do is to prove that he is qualified. He has to prove it to the voters, not the other way around. He is the one claiming to be qualified.

 

So far, he has not given any legally defensible proof. The SHORT FORM is prima facie evidence NOT conclusive evidence according to the jurisprudence and the Rules of Evidence.

 

Obama doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy. He only needs to show it, in closed door proceedings,  to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship.

 

Back

 

Question 24 :

Nowhere is it written that everyone should present their long form to prove their US citizenship. The short form has always been adequate.

 

It is only you who insists that the long form is the only acceptable proof of US citizenship. Where you got this idea is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Well, not really. You got it from the internet (cut and paste articles).

 

Nowhere is it written that everyone should present their long form to prove their US citizenship. The short form has always been adequate. The court in Virginia has already ruled that the short form is equivalent to the long form.

 

Besides, the long form is not in the possession of anyone but the state health agency. If the agency says it has Obama's long form and it is valid, what more do you want?

 

You can't force the agency to break the law and disclose Obama's long form and violate his privacy just so you will know what Obama's birth weight, blood type, health condition  etc etc was at the time of his birth. These are all confidential health information protected by law and has no bearing on citizenship status.

 

Back

 

Answer:

It is not enigma, it is not cut and paste, it is remedial law.

 

And yes, it is written in the US Constitution that the President of the US must be a natural born citizen, and yes the long form is required because that is the best evidence proving birth.

 

The SHORT FORM while tolerated is STILL NOT the best evidence and therefore in case of doubt it is the LONG FORM that resolves the issue.

 

I can understand why you insist on stopping at the short form as an acceptable proof of citizenship because you do not have a formal background in remedial law (evidence).

 

For you, the ''short form'' and the ''long form'' have the same probative value. That the Short Form is enough.

 

But are you sure? But what if the short form does not reveal information which is very critical but can only be gathered from the long form? Such as the actual hospital where Obama was born?

 

What I mean is that there are medical angles to a birth and there are remedial law aspects to a birth.

 

Why are there RULES on EVIDENCE?

 

It is to prevent people like the defenders of Obama  (who insist on the short form) and Berg and Martin and Keyes (who insist on the LONG FORM) to have debates on which kind of FORM is necessary and sufficient.

 

It is meant to satisfy everyone, or even ONE SINGLE VOTER like Berg who as a citizen deserves to know with finality if their President has met constitutional qualifications.

 

The internet articles are irrelevant. Remedial law is now in the foreground. It is the best evidence rule.

 

Basic in remedial law: Mere tolerance of evidence (short form) does not elevate it to best evidence status precisely when the authenticity of the best evidence (LONG FORM) is being questioned.

 

So far, the US govt agencies have tolerated the short form for Barack but actually insisted on the LONG Form from other candidates in previous elections (read about these cases) for different elective posts.

 

Why this fiasco is happening shows that even a country as advanced as the US has legal loopholes. In many schools without the LONG FORM you cannot even go to kindergarten.

 

It is axiomatic in law that there is always a best evidence and in there's a secondary evidence and the training in law is for the student to identify which of the two are admissible. The best evidence are listed in the Rules of Evidence.

 

If a short form has been "tolerated" that is not the same as the "best evidence". It is still secondary evidence.

 

Just because it has been tolerated doesnt mean it cannot be assailed. The remedial procedure then is to go beyond the "tolerated" and to go the "real proof" which is the LONG FORM.

 

If you read in the internet several old cases of disputes being resolved by the long form (not by the short form) you would realize that there are many US cases where age qualifications etc have been proved only by LONG FORM.

 

Obama has not satisfied the minimum requirement which is natural born citizenship. And precisely since a question is raised he must answer it.

 

Why are there lawyers who insist that the SHORT FORM is enough? That's because they are defending one side of the debate.

 

Of course, all lawyers know the best evidence rule, but if you are defending one side of the case,

- you bang the table like hell to prevent the opening of the REAL PROOF.

- And attack the person and

-  question the motives of the complainant.

 

One must look at it as a judge, not as a campaigner.

 

Some judges are biased too. They question standing, they raise technicalities.

 

 But somewhere out there is the solution: LONG FORM.

 

But even as a journalist or as a law student, you will NOT be content with secondary evidence precisely when the best evidence is being questioned.

 

Ask any of your friend lawyers, or judges, mere "tolerance" of the short form does not elevate it to the "best evidence." status which is the real proof.

 

Thus, as of today, Obama has not met the minimum standard of proof which is the LONG FORM. all other forms do not have the weight of a LONG FORM.

 

It is basic remedial law.

 

This is not mere curiosity. It is proving that fact of natural born citizenship.

 

Obama doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy. He only needs to show it, in closed door proceedings,  to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship.

 

Back

 

Question 25:

Barack Obama has been a Senator, surely he is citizen of the US?

 

Answer:

The citizenship requirement for Senator is not as stringent as that of the President.

 

The Senator position requires only “naturalized” citizenship. Thus, even the SHORT FORM which is merely computer-generated, may suffice.

 

However, it must be borne in mind that it is secondary evidence. If it has been tolerated as proof then that is acceptable, but when challenged, the candidate must prove his birth with the ultimate legal document which is the LONG FORM or vault certificate.

 

As for President of the US (POTUS), the requirement is natural born citizenship. This is precisely why the cases against Obama demand that he proves his citizenship by showing the circumstances of his birth because only these circumstances can prove if he was born as a natural born citizen.

 

Obama refuses to do so, and the voters are challenging his refusal.

 

Obama’s SHORT FORM may be acceptable for Senator but not for US President when there are voters who are requiring him to show his actual LONG FORM.

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

Back

 

 

Question 26:

What are common transactions in the US that require a “birth certificate”?

 

Answer:

Obama's failure to produce a birth certificate is at odds with how most of America operates. A certain Mary did a little Internet research on this topic.

 

A birth certificate is required to do the following in the USA (many require "certified" copies of the certificate).

 

    * Eligibility for a child to play in a soccer tournament or in a youth sports league

    * Registration into the Maxxis National (4-cycle Karting) Championship race

    * Enrollment in public school, including Head Start

    * Application for a driver's license

    * Admission to public institutions of higher education (universities)

    * Marriage license (if under 21)

    * Lifetime fish and wildlife license application

    * Harvard Athletic Association – Baseball/Softball Registration (for Minors and Majors)

    * Annual golf playing permit

    * Eligibility for health insurance to cover dependent children

    * Eligibility for children of students to live in campus housing with parents

    * Application for accidental death benefits, state board of retirement (surviving spouse's birth certificate)

    * Employment requirements for police department

 

However, it seems, a birth certificate is NOT required:

 

    * to be listed as a candidate for and to be elected as the president of the United States.

 

Officials at a kids' soccer tournament need a certified birth certificate as verified proof of a player's age, but it seems the courts and the Congress are willing just to take information at a candidate's word. Seems to defy logic!

 

Real people in "real America" can't play in a soccer tournament, get health insurance, apply for a driver's license, or even get rights to play golf (on at least one course) without first showing their birth certificate, but politicians seem to be above all that is required of "real people." The Obama campaign even says it's "garbage" that people are filing suits demanding a look at Obama's certified birth certificate.

 

Well, for those of us living in everyday America, it's not "garbage"; it's just "real life."

 

The bigger question, of course, is: "Why won't Obama release his certified birth certificate showing the place of birth and the attending doctor?"

 

It's been fairly well proven the short version posted on the Internet for several months is not a legal copy of Obama's birth certificate, and it's totally apparent that the certificate that was posted is a shortened version of what a Hawaiian birth document actually looks like.

 

As you note, for someone who says he believes in transparency in government, sure seems Obama wants to keep this document away from public view.

 

 

 

Question 27:

I am staring at his COLB and at the bottom of the page, it says that this document constitutes "prima facie evidence of the fact of birth...".

 

Answer:

Again this is the tricky part when one is not formally trained in law.

 

But PRIMA FACIE is not the same as CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

 

You can search jurisprudence on what PRIMA FACIE is.

 

Again, this goes to show SHORT FORM is not the proof of birth, it is computer generated, it is derived from the LONG FORM, it is merely secondary evidence, and the search for truth regarding Obama's natural born citizenship does not end with the SHORT FORM.

 

Question 28:

But Barack Obama has shown his birth certificate?

 

Answer:

No, he has not. He has not shown it in a legal proceeding nor to any official of the government.

 

You cannot just say, “Your Honor, please visit my allied website, there’s my edited, fake, certification, not certificate, of live birth.”

 

Obama doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy. He only needs to show it, in closed door proceedings,  to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship.

 

What he has given to websites are scanned copies of his SHORT FORM which is computer generated. That is not a birth certificate.

 

He has not even shown the embossed with official seal paper copy of the computer generated SHORT FORM to the public or the press to physically inspect.

 

He has only given it to website that are sympathetic to him.

 

There has been questions as to the authenticity of the scanned copies of the SHORT FORM because it has been shown to be doctored or photoshopped.

 

It has been assailed to be a forgery as well. Click on this URL.

 

 

Besides, a SHORT FORM is not enough to establish citizenship specially when Obama’s citizenship is questioned.

 

The best evidence is the LONG FORM showing exactly what hospital and in what city or country Obama was born.

 

Question 29:

Don’t you believe “factchecks” or similar websites?

 

Answer:

If you apply for passport, and the government agents demand for your LONG FORM, will you say, go visit my friend’s website?

 

That would be ridiculous. And yet, this is not a mere passport application. This is the only instance where a Natural Born Citizenship is required. This the Office of the POTUS!

 

Who are those behind those websites? Google check their benefactors. Are the supposedly independent websites really independent? The answer will surprise you. It has been assailed to be a forgery as well. Click on this URL.

 

The best evidence is the LONG FORM, any other document is hearsay. A scanned copy not presented in court is hearsay. A scanned copy of the SHORT form that is computer generated is hearsay.

 

The courts do not give any probative value to any scanned copy in a website.

 

It has been assailed to be a forgery as well. Click on this URL.

 

The proof of birth is the LONG FORM. The typewritten one prepared in 1961 showing the doctor, the hospital, the time, signatures.

 

Question 30:

Who has the burden of proof of citizenship?

 

Answer:

The person who positively claims such qualification of Natural Born Citizenship required for the position of the President of the US has the burden of proof that he qualifies.

 

The evidence needed is not the secondary evidence (the SHORT FORM certification which is merely computer generated) but the actual Certificate of Live Birth typed in 1961 and signed by the doctor, the parents, the registrar and shows the weight date hospital and all circumstances of birth.

 

Citizenship is a judicial issue. It is not within the power of the Health officials or clerks to determined whether or not Barack is a citizen. The agency’s functions are merely ministerial.

 

To prove citizenship, therefore, requires no less than the source document, the primary source, the conclusive proof of birth which is the LONG FORM.

 

Obama doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy. He only needs to show it, in closed door proceedings,  to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship.

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

 

Question 31:

Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?

 

Answer:

Here is the Electoral College site and see what it says about how a candidate is qualified. It says the Secretary of State for each State may be required to do so under State law. It then goes on to say that a challenge needs to be made in a letter signed by a Senator and House Member. Any citizen that questions Obama's credentials needs to start writing to their Senators and House Members demanding they review these records before it is to late:

http://www.archives.gov/federa...ions.html

 

The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.

 

Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate's name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state's top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit the National Secretaries of State web site to locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State from each state and the District of Columbia.

 

Under federal law an objection to a state's electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress's counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

 

 

 

Question 32:

Somebody must have seen the vault copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth (LONG FORM), any rumors on what it contains?

 

Answer:

Of course, this is not admissible in the courts but read this transcript.

 

Listen to the Interview between Alan Keyes attorney (Gary Kreep) and his PR firm.

 

Specifically, listen to Part 2 of the Interview and fast forward to the 16:00 mark.

 

http://www.freedommarch.org/FreedomMarch_Radio.html

 

Here's a transcription of it:

 

"Joe? Can I break in for just a minute? Ok, Gary, I will tell you this much. I have a member in Hawaii who works uh... something like title research. You know what I'm talkin' about?

 

"He has actually seen Barack Obama's vault birth certificate. Dennis tells me that this vault birth certificate has nothin' but his mother's signature on it.

 

"It also shows that he was born in that uh... coast town... I can't remember what the name of it... Kenya."

 

Gary Kreep interjects, "Mombasa."

 

The toothless Bubba continues:

 

"Mambosa, Kenya. Right.

 

"Uh, he tells me that's why Obama will not release it and that's why nobody's gonna get it because when that comes out it's gonna show that he was not born in America.

 

"That this birth certificate is actually produced by his mother. There's no hospital uh, signature, no doctor signature, nothin' on it."

Question 33:

Why was the Berg vs. Obama case dismissed in the lower courts?

 

Answer:

Berg, a citizen, was not considered as having proper standing.

There was no trial on the merits.

Berg is raised the issue to the Supreme Court.

Berg argues that if he has not standing, as a citizen to inquire whether a Presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified, then who has? You? Me? Them?

 

Question 34 :

Did Obama’s Kenyan grandmother ever declare that she witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya?

 

Answer:

As late at Oct 16, 2008, two or three weeks before the election, she was interviewed over the cellphone by an Anabaptist bishop (in US) and minister (in Kenya). Remember, these are notarized affidavits by church people and not to be dismissed lightly.

 

Click here for a link to the notarized affidavits.

 

----------------------------- transcript below --------------------

 

Here is the youtube

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo&feature=related

 

 

sara obama's cellphone reply.. (barack was born in Kenya)

 

with transcript .. use this ..

 

Kweli Shuhudia and Sarah Obama: Transcript         PDF   Print   E-mail

 

obama_affidavit_of_kweli_shuhubia10302008corr_1_

ronmcraeaffidavitexhibitssarahobamainterviewtranscript

 

November 2, 2008

Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae, Transcript of Phone Conversation With Kweli Shuhudia & Sarah Obama

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Time: 10:40 a.m.

NOTATION: Mr. Shuhudia called me first on October 16th at 10:33a.m. and advised that he was with Sarah Hussein Obama and that she wanted to speak with me, but the connection was lost. He called me right back at 10:35a.m. and he informed me that there were several hundred people present, celebrating Obama's success. I questioned him about the format of the phone call and conversation with Ms. Obama, and then informed him that I would call him right back, so it would not cost him international charges for the call.

 

I called back at 10:40a.m. and public music and voices could be heard that were gathered around Kweli Shuhudia. I then spoke with him and requested that they utilize the speaker phone so everyone could hear. The speaker phone with its open microphone was utilized with Mr. Kweli Shuhudia, Mr. Vitalis Akech Ogombe assisting in the translation work and Ms. Sarah Hussein, along with several hundred people including policeman present and listening to the open conversation between the four of us for approximately 15 minutes.

 

A third unknown party can be heard periodically interjecting both Swahili and English words in the public discussion and conversation between the four of us. At times the room noise from other peoples' voices makes some of the swahili difficult to hear, and towards the end of the converstaion several men's voices are heard that are not identified.

From AT&T Monthly Statement of Calls:

110 WED 10/15/2008 8:18PM 814-629-5423 BOSWELL PA 1 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

111 THU 10/16/2008 10:33AM 254726477700

INCOMING

CL

1 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

112 THU 10/16/2008 10:35AM 254726477700

INCOMING

CL

1 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

113 THU 10/16/2008 10:40AM 254726477700 KENYA ** 15 RM30 DT 0.00 12.32 12.32

114 THU 10/16/2008 10:54AM 610-662-3005

BALACYNWY

PA

2 ESM1 DT M2MC 0.00 0.00 0.00

115 THU 10/16/2008 10:56AM 610-825-3134

CONSHOHCK

PA

10 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

116 THU 10/16/2008 11:17AM 313-418-6959 DETROIT MI 1 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

117 THU 10/16/2008 11:18AM 313-418-6959 DETROIT MI 16 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

118 THU 10/16/2008 11:33AM 254726477700 KENYA ** 2 RM30 DT 0.00 1.76 1.76

119 THU 10/16/2008 12:37PM 254726477700 KENYA ** 2 RM30 DT 0.00 1.76 1.76

120 THU 10/16/2008 12:41PM 814-242-9409 VMAIL CL 1 RM30 DT VM 0.00 0.00 0.00

121 THU 10/16/2008 12:42PM 254726477700 KENYA ** 10 RM30 DT 0.00 8.80 8.80

 

Transcript:

Two Rings:

Kweli Shuhudia: Hello? [Back ground music]

 

Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae 2

 

Ron McRae: Brother Kweli? [music] Brother Kweli? This is Brother McRae.

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes.

 

Ron McRae: Okay. How are you today?

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Now. We are okay. How are you?

 

Ron McRae: I'm doing very well. You said you are there with, uh, Barack Obama's

grandmother?

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. I am just in the home now. She is right here. We're, we're waitingto talk in a uh long conversation. And [unitelligible] a good family and she is ready to talk.

 

Ron McRae: Good. She's not there at the present?

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. She's here right now.

 

Ron McRae: Okay. Is it possible to speak to her?

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. It is possible. I ah, along with her and her family, uh, you and me.

 

Ron McRae: Uh, is it possible for you to put her on the speaker phone and translate for

me?

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes! Yes! I will do that.

 

Ron McRae: Okay.

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes?

 

Ron McRae: Okay.

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. Go ahead [he then speaks to her in Swahili]

 

Sarah Obama: [Replies to him in Swahili]

 

Ron McRae: Ms. Obama?

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes go ahead.

 

Ron McRae: Mrs. Obama, my name is bishop Ron McRae.

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Ametaja bishop Ron McRae, Ron McRae. Go ahead.

 

Ron McRae: I am, I am the bishop of the Anabaptists Churches of North America.

 

Kweli Shuhudia: Yeye niaskofu Anabaptists makaisa.

 

Sarah Obama: Shikamooo! [Hello, good day].

 

Mr. Ogombe: Are you speaking English and , and we will tell her in Luo. Okay?

 

Ron McRae: Now give me that again. Explain it to me again.

 

Ogombe: It is welcome. She is very grateful for your interest.

 

Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae 3

 

Ron McRae: Okay. Thank you! Tell her I count it a great honor to speak to here since her son Barack Obama is running for President of the United States.

 

Ogombe: Eh makasema yuko kiuu mgomba Obama kwa mwenyekiti America. Yah, she says she is very helpful for got to you to please pray for Obama. She is asking you to pray for him. For Obama.

 

Ron McRae: Yes Sir. Uh...Ms. Obama, you can rest assured that I am praying for your son, for your grandson.

 

Ogombe: Yes. It is helpful also towards it is beginning to help.

Ron McRae: Okay.

 

Sarah Obama: [unitelligible from Ms. Obama because of room noise].

 

Ogombe: She says she is covet your prayers for he [unintelligible] her son.

 

Ron McRae: Okay. And tell her that I will be coming there in December and I would like to come by and meet with her and pray with her.

 

Ogombe: Yes. Ye atakuwa mwezi Desemba.

 

Kweli Shuhudia: In December. He will come in December and he wants to come and talk with you.

 

Sarah Obama: [unitelligible]

 

Ogombe: Oh she says you're so encourage her. Your coming in December so you can talk together with her.

 

Ron McRae: Amen. I am so thankful. Could I ask her, uh, about his, uh, his actual birthplace? I would like to see hi actual birthplace when I, when I come to Kenya in December. Uh, was she present when he was, was she present when he was born in Kenya?

 

Ogombe to Sarah Obama: Alikuma zalima Obama [unintelligible].

Kweli Shuhudia: He is asking her, he wants to know something was ah she present when he was born?

 

Ogombe: Yes. She says, "Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born."

Ron McRae: Okay.

 

Since then, the Kenyan government has forbidden media interviews of Obama’s family in Kenya.

 

Question 35:

Now that Obama is ready for the White House, and he has selected his cabinet, has any White House journalist asked the Press Secretary point-blank about his LONG FORM?

 

Answer:

Yes, it has been asked but sidestepped.

 

Monday, November 24, 2008

Deputy White House Press Secretary Avoids Question About Obama Birth Certificate

 

In a press briefing this morning, Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto ended the briefing by overtly avoiding a question regarding President-elect Barack Obama's birth certificate and demands made by the CEO of WorldNetDaily that a long-form document be released.

 

From the transcript (video also available at the link HERE):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_7sXEt4zQ8&feature=related

 

    And Lester, and then we're done.

 

    Q: Thank you, Tony. Two questions. There's been extensive media coverage of where the two Obama daughters will attend school. And my question: The White House believes that they should be able to attend the school their parents select without criticism because it's private rather than public, don't you?

 

    MR. FRATTO: I think we support all parents making that decision.

 

    Q: Good. The CEO of WorldNetDaily has called on the President-elect to release a birth certificate listing the hospital and names of parents. The White House believes that this would fully satisfy the constitutional requirement, don't you?

 

    MR. FRATTO: I don't think I have anything to say on that, Lester, and I think we're going to end it right there.

 

    Thank you.

 

 

The question, it seems, came from Lester Kinsolving, a journalist known over the past few decades for his off-the-wall questions while working as a member of the White House press corps. Still, with the recent news that the Kenyan Ambassador "confirmed" to a radio host that Obama was born in Kenya (personally, their questioning left much to be desired, and reminded me of the classic deposition question, "So, when did you stop beating your wife," in that it was designed to catch the guy off-guard), it seems that the story is gaining some traction.

 

Question 36:

Does Obama have a Kenyan birth certificate?

 

Answer:

So far nobody has produced any. But there are three major sources of stories about its existence.

 

All of these are rumors which could be quieted down once Obama releases his LONG FORM birth certificate.

 

1.     Ed Hale’s (of PlainsRadio.com) statement (unverified) below.

2.     African Press International’s story about the Imam who has in his possession original logbook of Obama’s birth blessing in their mosque in Mombasa Kenya. (unverified)

3.     The “notarized” affidavit (under oath) of Minister Kweli Shuhudia in Kenya who claims to have talked to the civil registrar in Mombasa who confirmed that birth of Obama has been recorded but kept under wraps unless the minister gets permission from the Atty General of Kenya

 

Elsewhere in this FAQ, the relevant statements will be handled.

All of these are rumors which could be quieted down once Obama releases his LONG FORM birth certificate.

 

Obama doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy. He only needs to show it, in closed door proceedings,  to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship.

 

Question 37:

So what was that Ed Hale claim?

 

Answer:

Unverified rumors. On the internet there are rumors about it, and this one comes from Ed Hale. All of these are rumors which could be quieted down once Obama releases his LONG FORM birth certificate.

 

 

http://pub36.bravenet.com/forum/3009070907/fetch/879567/

 

Ed Hale

Date Posted: Oct 11, 08 - 7:36 PM

IP Address: 98.20.52.126

State your in Texas

 

I guess the time has come to set the story about Obama Kenya Birth Certificate. I hosted Phil Berg on our No Obama Talk show on August 21, 2008. We then had Phil back on August 28, 2008. At that time I was contacted by one of the HCSFJM member by phone who told me that they were a importer/exporter and they had connection in Kenya. I talked to this person and also talk to Phil about it. We then discussed a plan on how to get the BC to the USA. We knew that Obama would do anything to stop this. We decide that Caren and I would be the decoy. We would announce that this BC would be shipped to Carens work place. Actually the BC was never coming to us. Our member was able to find the BC and it cost $1000.00 to get. There was 3 copies of the BC sent to the USA via 3 different carries to 3 different people.

HCSFJM had a member very near Phil and this was the primary target. I received a email on September 14,2008 from our member. The email said “The packages are on their way”. I knew that the

BC had been secured and was enroute to the USA. 3 days later I received another email that said “The package has been delivered”. I knew that our member had deliver the BC to Phil. In addition to Kenya BC, there is 3 certified statement from people who stated they were present when Obama was born. We are seek additional information at this time about Obama US BC. I have had a person who has looked at the “vault” book for Obama original BC form Hawaii. It does not exist.

All Phil Berg want is to have a court hearing and he will introduce that Kenya BC. I have a copy of that BC but I will not post it till I am cleared by Phil.

Do you remember when Phil made the statement on our show “He would talk to the real media which was us”. Now you know why we are able to get Phil on about any time we need him.

Very few people knew about this, Caren, Phil, our 2 HCSFJM members and myself. We had security on this that was unbelievable. No it is a matter of time before Phil get into court. Relax Folks, Obama will never be the president of this country as long as we have people who are willing to put their lives on the line for this great country. I will reveal in due time who those 2 great American (HCSFJM member) in due time. They must remain in limbo as of now for their own security.

 

I want to thank all of you for your support of this web site. Without you, this would never had occured. When I was talkign about starting a radio show, I had several people tell me I was crazy, but I guess the joke is now on them. I want to thanks the millions of people who listen to me and the gang every weekdday night. Today I am the proudest American alive

 

Additional info:

Ed Hale has Phil Berg on. Ed is saying that he had someone go to Kenya who obtained Obama's birth certificate (list hospital and witnesses). The person was taken off the bus, shot and his belongings along with the birth certicate taken from him.

 

Question 38:

What about that Imam who allegedly has the logbook of Barack’s birth and blessing in their mosque?

Answer:

API has not shown any proof but here is their statement. All of these are rumors which could be quieted down once Obama releases his LONG FORM birth certificate.

 

Obama doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy. He only needs to show it, in closed door proceedings,  to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship.

 

 

The Imam who came forward to assist in the search of Barack Obama’s identity left Kenya secretly last night, and will arrive in the UK this morning. He will meet with a US contact person who will assist him in recording an asylum statement in the UK after handing over the documents that caused the blessing of Obama when he was born and to confirm the origin of the name Hussein.

 

The man will join relatives in the UK because his life will be in danger if he were to return to Kenya after removing the documents from the Mosque’s archives and taking them out of the country. The man has been informed about the on-going case filed in the US Supreme Court by attorney Philip Berg challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship.

 

When the man heard that Jerome Corsi was in Kenya a few months ago, he took a decision to try and meet him, but had to travel back to Mombasa from Nairobi on hearing that Corsi had been bundled and taken to the airport on deportation orders.

 

The Imam is the grandson of the late Imam who blessed Barack Obama when he was born in Mombasa on the 4th of august 1961.

 

While in the UK, the Imam and the American contact person will visit Amnesty International before handing himself over to the authorities where he will formally deliver his application for asylum. The contact man has arranged so that they get an official from Amnesty international to accompany them to the home office desk where he will inform them on he dangers that will face him if he were to return to Kenya after delivering the documents on Obama.

 

This may now bring to close the speculations on Obama’s citizenship and the secrecy on where he was born.

 

API will dispatch a detailed letter in support of the Imam’s - application for asylum and protection - to the UK Home Office Secretary later today. The letter will be made available on the site here, but minus the names of the Imam.

 

African Press International

 

All of these are rumors which could be quieted down once Obama releases his LONG FORM birth certificate.

 

Question 39:

Has anybody else confirmed the existence of Obama’s Kenyan birth record? What was the affidavit of Minister Kweli Shuhudia?

Answer:

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND KWELI SHUHUBIA

I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows I am an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a native evangelist and translator for the Anabaptist churches in Kenya. I am the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptists Conference held each year in Africa, working with the American bishops sitting upon the Continental Presbytery of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa. I am fluent in Swahili and in English. I am a former teacher in Kenya, and travel extensively in the ministries of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa throughout Kenya, Uganda and the Sudan.

It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya. Senator Obama’s grandmother still resides in the village of Alego-Kogello, approximately 37 miles from Kisumu City.

 

We removed the conversations with Obama’s grandmother but here is that portion where he said he went to Mombasa shortly after meeting Sara Obama

 

I left Kisumu City and traveled to Mombosa, Kenya. I interviewed personnel at the hospital in which Senator Obama was born in Kenya. I then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Registrar.

 

I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled.

 

The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama,Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret. I was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’sOffice and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if I wanted further information .

 

The above related facts are true and verifiable to the best of my personal knowledge before God Almighty, whose I am and whom I serve.

Question 40:

Why does Donofrio think that both Obama and McCain are not natural born citizens?

Answer:

Donofrio’s statement:

On November 28, 2008, Judah Benjamin published an article at the Texas Darlin blog which discussed my case and the natural born citizen issue.  While I enjoyed reading this article, and I agree with the conclusion - that Obama is not eligible - I disagree with the basis upon which that conclusion was made.

 

Specifically, I disagree that the common law is controlling on the issue of “natural born citizen”.  It is “national law” which is controlling.  I don’t know if Mr. Benjamin is a lawyer, but his reading, explanation and understanding of the natural born citizen issue is not exactly on point.

 

I do agree with Benjamin’s conclusion, that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but for the wrong reasons.

 

And I did enjoy Judah’s article above.  He has obviously done much research.  But there is a glaring mistake in his logic where he fails to point out the necessary concept in common law definition of “natural born subject”.

 

There are two mistakes in his article which need to be addressed.

 

FIRST MISTAKE: Failure to state cited law was repealed.

 

Judah mentions the 1790 naturalization act as follows:

 

“In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) it says:

 

‘the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens’.”

 

Unfortunately, Benjamin fails to mention, as do many others, that this act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause as written above EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”.

 

See Section 3 Naturalization Act of 1795

 

This leads to the second point of error.

 

SECOND MISTAKE:  Failure to properly analyze common law.

 

Congress having repealed the”natural born provision” leads to the core problem in Mr. Benjamin’s analysis.  Naturalization only concerns people who were, “at birth” not US citizens.

 

People born in other countries as citizens of foreign powers, but who immigrate to the USA are naturalized.  Naturalization has nothing to do with citizens like McCain who are born abroad to American citizens and are US Citizens by statute “at birth”.

 

Naturalization also could not cover Obama who was (we assume) born on United States soil (Hawaii).

 

But at the common law, naturalized citizens WERE considered to be “NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS”.  At the common law, the act of naturalization returns them to birth and they are effectively reborn to the allegiance of the King.

 

The best case which explains this concept is “United States vs. Rhodes” which Mr. Benjamin does quote but fails to mention the case citation, which is always important because it provides the reader the chance to see the context of the quote discussed.  And this is very important.  Here is what Benjamin quoted from Justice Swayne’s eloquent opinion:

 

“Justice Noah Haynes Swayne was around when they wrote the XIVth Amendment and the Equal Rights Act of 1866 and in 1866 he said this:

 

‘All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born Subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.’ “

 

And this appears to back Mr. Benjamin’s core thesis, that Obama is not a natural born citizen under the common law definition thereof, which may be true, but that in itself is NOT the main reason Obama isn’t eligible.  The common law is not our national law.  Our national law is the Constitution.  We do not follow the common law, we follow the Constitution.

 

And this is important to note because the common law, which may also bear out that Obama isn’t eligible, at the same time provides Obama with his best argument that he is eligible.  The reason for this lies on that part of Justice Swayne’s opinion which Mr. Benjamin did not quote.  Here is Justice Swayne’s relevant quote:

 

“An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129.  “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.” Vin. Abr. tit. “Alien,” D. …The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process.  To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power.  There is a universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.  [**26]  Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story, Const. 44.

 

United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866)

 

The status of the candidate “at birth” is relevant to Article 2, Section 1.  For somebody to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, they must have the status “at birth”.

 

If the common law were applied in the USA, then all naturalized citizens would be eligible to be President since the common law understanding was that, as quoted by Swayne, “Naturalization takes effect from birth”.  If we followed that today, then all naturalized citizens would be returned to birth to be reborn and could therefore claim “natural born citizen” status.

 

Mr. Benjamin correctly points out that naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger can NOT be President since they are naturalized and the US doesn’t recognize those persons as “natural born citizens”.

 

But Mr. Benjamin also argues that this idea comes from the common law and he is wrong about that.  The common law holds that Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been naturalized, would have been a “natural born subject”.  And if we then apply the common law concept and understanding of “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen” then Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible to be President since, at common law, his birth status could change upon naturalization.

 

But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be President because the United States doesn’t follow common law.  The United States follows national law, and our national law is the CONSTITUTION.

 

Obama was not naturalized, and I do not make the argument above to say that naturalization laws apply to Obama - although they might if he were not born in Hawaii- but let’s assume he was.   I make the argument above to show that the United States is not following common law and the Constitution will not be interpreted as if it were controlled by common law.  There is enough evidence in our history and other laws to bear this out.

 

The first of which is precedent.  In our history as a nation, every President we have ever had was born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens.

 

And it’s very important, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s very recent comments to the Federalist Society of November 22, 2008 wherein he said that the common law is dead and does not control in the USA:

 

“The common law is gone.  The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”

 

You might want to hear Justice Scalia’s entire presentation:

 

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp

 

Furthermore, it is very clear that the those who wrote the 14th Amendment believed that only those so qualified as all previous Presidents were eligible to be President under Article 2, section 1, Clause 5.  This was made clear by Madison’s article:

 

“Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law” Dec 10, 2006

 

“John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.”

 

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, must also be read in light of the 14th Amendment which is just as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.

 

CONCLUSION

 

All in all, Mr. Benjamin has made a valiant attempt to provide a clear analysis of the natural born citizen topic.  Please do not assume I am bashing him.  I respect his passion and research, but it’s not entirely accurate.  And considering what Scalia just said to the Federalist Society about the common law being gone (only three days after my case was scheduled for conference), it’s important to keep things in their proper historical perspective.

 

Leo C. Donofrio

 

Note: McCain gave a copy of the LONG-FORM birth certificate showing the hospital, the doctor, etc. attending his birth. Obama has not.

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

Question 41:

Why is the Donofrio vs. Wells case different from the Berg vs. Obama case?

Answer:

The Berg vs. Obama case challenges the natural born citizenship of Obama because of the latter’s country of birth (Kenya or Hawaii).

 

While the Donofrio vs. Wells challenges Obama’s citizenship based on this status at birth as being a British citizen or British subject (dual citizenship).

 

Here is how Donofrio explains his case to ABC News.

   

ABC NEWS GETS THE DONOFRIO SCOTUS STORY WRONG

Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

 

Below is the text of a letter I just sent to ABC News:

 

Dear Mr. Terry Owens and ABC News.

 

The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you.  I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born.  You wrote,

 

“The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.”

 

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”.  The word “born” has meaning.  It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”.  Obama had dual nationality at birth.  The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.”  If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.

 

Furthermore, the case is scheduled for conference of all nine Justices, not eight. You should correct that.

 

And your reporting, which could have been complete with a simple phone call to the Public Information Office, is also deficient in that it wasn’t Justice Thomas alone who distributed the case for conference of December 5, 2008.  That was a decision taken after consideration of the full Court.

 

There are two docket entries for Nov. 19.  One of them shows that Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court.  The other indicates that the full court distributed the case for conference of Dec. 5. I suggest you call Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer for the United States Supreme Court.  She will set you and your story straight.

 

The case could have easily been denied after Justice Thomas referred it to the full court.  There was no requirement that it be distributed for conference.  In fact, the normal procedure in referred applications involves no public mention of such cases until after the full Court has taken some action.  There is an official Supreme Court Publication entitled

 

“A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States”

 

You may find it here:

 

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

 

It will guide you with accuracy to the actions involved in the case you are reporting upon.  On page 3, it states:

“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.“

 

Now go back and check the docket url for my case.

 

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

 

Another misleading element of your story is the headline.  The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status.  Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President.  I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.

 

But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”.  Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President.  So, your headline is wrong as well as your story.

 

If you would like to respond to this letter, which I have just published in my blog about the case, feel free to do so and I will publish your response as is.

 

My blog URL is http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

 

Yesterday, a reporter from the Kansas City Star wrote an equally misleading report about my case.  After readers of this blog confronted him, he had the decency to call me and apologize for the wrong treatment my case received in his report.  We struck up a good conversation and I gave him proper respect for his admission.  I am here to talk any time you like. I understand the concepts are technical and non-lawyers have problems with them.

 

Regards,

 

Leo C. Donofrio

 

(The US Supreme Court has denied Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases action without a discussion on the merits. Therefore the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship has not been settled yet by the SCOTUS, leaving the issue open for more suits until resolved on the merits of the issues.)

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

Question 42:

Why doesn’t the Donofrio vs. Wells case focus on the birth certificate of Obama?

 

Answer:

Because Donofrio thinks that Obama may be a “native born” but not a “natural born” citizen.

 

Here is Donofrio’s correction to a constitutional expert.

 

JONATHAN TURLEY, CON LAW EXPERT GETS IT WRONG

Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

 

Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley will appear on MSNBC’s count down tonight and according to his blog he’ll be discussing this case.  Unfortunately he got it all wrong.  Here is the comment I left at his blog. It is awaiting moderation, but other comments have been cleared since I left mine:

 

naturalborncitizen 1, December 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm

 

Mr. Turley,

 

My name is Leo Donofrio and my application before the Supreme Court says, within the body of the pleading, that I believe Mr. Obama is a Citizen of the United States - born in Hawaii. Your report above is not accurate.

 

My law suit challenges his status as a “natural born citizen” based upon the fact that his Father was a British citizen/subject.  Mr. Obama admits, at his own web site, that he was a British citizen/subject at birth.  He was also a US citizen “at birth”. He does not have dual nationality now, but the Constitution is concerned with the candidate’s status “at birth”, hence the word “born” in the requirement.

 

You have completely mis-stated my lawsuit. I have repeatedly said, over and again, that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. I have criticized everyone who has said Mr. Obama is not a citizen. I believe he is a “native born citizen”, but not a “natural born citizen”.

 

The law suit is based upon what distinction the framers drew between the requirement for a Senator and Representative, which only requires “Citizen” status as opposed to the requirements for President, which requires “natural born Citizen” status. As you are aware, this is an issue of first impression for SCOTUS.

 

Please do not go on national TV and mis-lead the viewers. For a more in depth discussion, please see my response to today’s ABC News faulty report at:

 

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

 

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

 

(The US Supreme Court has denied Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases action without a discussion on the merits. Therefore the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship has not been settled yet by the SCOTUS, leaving the issue open for more suits until resolved on the merits of the issues.)

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

Question 43:

Are there some legal articles on citizenship that I can read for background?

 

Answer:

Instead of reading actual sections of the code or law, sometimes it is better to first read some articles about citizenship before reading the code themselves.

 

Here are some articles:

 http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/sachs.htm

(Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth by Stephen E. Sachs)

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/chin.htm

(Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship  by Gabriel J. Chin)

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.htm

(The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? By Daniel P. Tokaji)

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1401.html

Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

(U.S. Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad by Henry J. Chang)

Question 44:

Are there precedents where a President of the USA was born to parents who were born abroad (not “natural born parents”)?

 

Answer:

“PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al - WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

Posted in Uncategorized on December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

December 5, 2008 - 5:34 am

 

This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad.   As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.

 

Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :

 

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;

 

JAMES BUCHANAN

 

The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States.   He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania.  He just missed  out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.   Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.

 

His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani.  His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783.   It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain.  Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.

 

Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States.   When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States.  No formal naturalization was needed.

 

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified.  The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States.   When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

 

ANDREW JOHNSON

 

Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808.  Wiki has this on his father:

 

Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County.  The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

 

The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US.   But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born.   The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization.  The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

 

Jacob Johnson also served as  a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable.   I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born.   (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

 

Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.

 

So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.

 

[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]

 

WOODROW WILSON

 

Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.

 

Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England.  His father was a US citizen from Ohio.   Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,

 

“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]

 

This was called derivative citizenship.   This act was enacted in 1855.  Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856.  He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.

 

HERBERT HOOVER

 

Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874.  He was the 31st President.   His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen.  His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada.   They were married in 1870.  According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.

 

So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen.

 

CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President

 

And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue.   Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.

 

More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad.   But there was absolutely no merit to the charge.  Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada.  Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”

 

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves.  It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes.  Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible.   It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history.  Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

 

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819.  His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821.  They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

 

THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized?  I don’t know.  The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book.  I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope.  No reference to the naturalization date.

 

FACTS

 

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont.  Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824.   Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829.   Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

 

It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802.  That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens.   Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824.  Chester was born in October 1829.  So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born.  William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.

 

CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE

 

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:

 

“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child.  (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect.  Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”

 

Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive.   Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780.   Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer.   If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it.  We will revisit this later.   Suspend judgment for now.

 

CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE

 

And this is where our villain Hinman returns.  But was he a villain to Arthur?  Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen.   It wasn’t true.  Chester was born in Vermont.   But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

 

Does any of this sound familiar?

 

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

 

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency.  By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen.  Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

 

His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there.  This was a blatant lie.

 

CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE

 

In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880.  In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

 

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland.  He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

 

This was another blatant lie.   His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23.   William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont.  The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.   So, a third blatant lie.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight.  I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.

 

It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide.   He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived).   He moved his age back a year.  I think vanity is a poor excuse.   Only one year?  He lied about his mother’s time in Canada.  He lied about his father’s time in Canada.

 

By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized.  Think about the time period.  He ran for Vice-President in 1880.  His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible.  But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.

 

As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.

 

Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States.  This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

 

William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

 

Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William.   Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track.  Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen.  Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility.  And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

 

Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency.   Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.

 

While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont,  between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born.  This is the most likely time period for his naturalization.  The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”

 

I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur.  Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had.  And he got away with it through his lies.  But the light has a way of finding the darkness.

 

It’s no precedent to follow.

 

Leo C. Donofrio

 

(The US Supreme Court has denied Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases action without a discussion on the merits. Therefore the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship has not been settled yet by the SCOTUS, leaving the issue open for more suits until resolved on the merits of the issues.)

 

Question 45:

I’m curious, what does the Donofrio case actually argue?

 

Answer:

The best answer is the thing itself. Here’s a copy of Donofrio’s pleading.

No.

In The

 

Supreme Court of the United States

 

Leo C. Donofrio,

 

v.

 

Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey

 

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY

 

 

Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se

PO Box 93

East Brunswick

New Jersey, 08816

 

November 3rd, 2008

 

AFFIRMATION

 

Appellant, Leo C. Donofrio, respectfully submits to this most Honorable Court,

 

having exhausted all available remedies below, that there are no other

 

jurisdictions available to him for review.  Appellant further respectfully

 

submits to this Honorable Court that this matter reflects a vitally important

 

public interest, and that it also presents a unique Constitutional question of

 

first impression as to the legal significance of the term "natural born citizen"

 

as enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States

 

as an absolute qualifier for all who seek the office of President of the United States. 

 

 

LOWER COURT ORDERS

 

     Appellant, Leo C. Donofrio, Has brought the emergency Application before

 

this most Honorable Court directly from an order denying Appellant's Motion

 

For Emergency Injunctive Relief from The Supreme Court of New Jersey, by the

 

Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long, on Friday October 31, 2008 at approximately

 

1:30 PM. Prior to making such Motion in The Supreme Court of New Jersey,

 

Appellant sought emergency relief in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate

 

Division, before the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino.  Appellant filed various papers

 

in the Appellate Division, including a Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent

 

Relief, and a letter supplement thereto, after which His Honorable Jack M.

 

Sabatino granted full review of this matter.  Appellant then filed a Complaint

 

In Lieu of Prerogative Writs, followed by a Motion For Summary Judgment. 

 

     Appellant's Application for Emergent relief, after having been granted

 

full review by the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino and the Honorable Philip

 

S. Carchman, Presiding Justice, Appellate Division, on October 27, was

 

dismissed on October 30, 2008, by an order and five page decision by the

 

Honorable Jack M. Sabatino at approximately 5:00 PM, October 30, 2008.

 

    

RELIEF REQUESTED

 

     Appellant, Leo C. Donofrio, a New Jersey citizen who intends to vote in

 

the pending general election of 2008, requests this most Honorable Court

 

to issue an Emergency Stay prohibiting the use, in the State of New Jersey,

 

of defective ballots containing at least three ineligible candidates for the

 

office of President of the United States, and for such Honorable Court to

 

order Defendant-Respondent, Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of

 

the State of New Jersey, to remove from New Jersey ballots the names of

 

Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama,

 

and Socialist Worker's Party candidate Roger Calero, as Appellant

 

respectfully submits they are not "natural born citizens" as enumerated

 

in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.  

 

     And should this Honorable Court agree that the aforementioned

 

candidates are not "natural born citizens" of the United States, Appellant

 

respectfully submits, that while he did not request a Stay of the national

 

election in the lower courts, such a Stay be ordered for good and proper

 

cause.  In the alternative, while Appellant's original complaint requested

 

an order staying the ballots until Respondent might complete a proper

 

investigation as to the Presidential eligibility of the candidates, Appellant

 

respectfully submits that the Constiutional issue now before the Court is

 

of the utmost public importance and is also here now before this most

 

Honorable Court as a matter of first impression.

 

     Appellant respectfully submits that the only purpose for

 

remanding the matter back to the Secretary of State would involve

 

the issue of whether Democratic candidate Barack Obama be

 

required to prove to Respondent that he was born in Hawaii. 

 

    Appellant, in both his original Complaint and Motion For

 

Summary Judgment, contends that candidate Obama is not eligible

 

to the Presidency as he would not be a "natural born citizen" of

 

the United States even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii , since,

 

as was argued in Appellant's original complaint brief, as well as

 

Appellant's brief in support of Motion For Summary Judgment,

 

Senator Obama's father was born in Kenya and therefore, having

 

been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is

 

not a "natural born citizen" as is required by Article 2, Section 1,

 

of the United States Constitution. 

 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

 

     In early October 2008, Appellant began to fear that controversys

 

surrounding numerous law suits, filed against Presidential candidates

 

Senator John McCain and Senator Barrack Obama, would threaten

 

Appellant's fundamental voting right as well as his fundamental right

 

to be governed by a President with a proper mandate under the

 

Constituion. 

 

     On October 22nd, 2008, Apellant phoned the

 

New Jersey Office of  Secretary of State, Elections Division, and

 

spoke with Donna Barber, the Elections Manager for the State of

 

New Jersey.  During that conversation, Appellant asked Ms. Barber

 

what steps the Secretary had taken to determine whether any of

 

the candidates listed on New Jersey ballots for the upcoming

 

Presidential election were eligible for the office of President. 

 

     Donna Barber then informed Appellant that Respondent-Secretary

 

of State took no steps to determine such eligibility but rather assumed

 

the candidates were eligible based upon only the fact that they had

 

been nominated.  Appellant then took a close look at the election statutes.

 

     N.J.S.A 19:13-22  requires Respondent to follow specifically

 

prescribed steps in order to protect and secure New Jersey ballots

 

voters from the destruction of electoral integrity.  Specifically, 19:13-22

 

requires Secretary Wells to make a "statement" wherein she certifies,

 

under her hand and official seal of office, the names...

 

 "...of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election."   (Emphasis added.)

 

     The purpose of the statement is to instruct the clerks, and the board

 

of elections, for each county, as to which candidates are "by law entitled"

 

to have their names printed on the ballots for the upcoming election.   

 

The next day, October 23, 2008, Appellant spoke with Elections Manager,

 

Donna Barber, and again was told that Respondent had no reason to

 

object to the party nominations and that the statutory deadline for

 

objection to such nominations had passed.  Ms. Barber specifically

 

stated that her office, the Elections Division, would not change the

 

ballots at such a late date.

 

     Appellant considered various options, but ultimately came to

 

the conclusion, after further review of the statutory code, that the only

 

legal force available to him was an Action In Lieu of Prerogative

 

Writs to compel Respondent's ministerial ballot policing duty. 

 

 

TIMELINESS OF ACTION IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

 

     Counsel below contended, and the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino, in his

 

decision, agreed, that Appellant brought his action too late.  Appellant

 

rigorously contends that assertion to be false.  Feeling the weight of

 

the impending election, Appellant wasted no time initiating litigation

 

on October 27, 2008, only five days, including a full weekend, after

 

he first learned of Respondent's misfeasance of office.  Counsel and

 

his Honor have misinterpreted the statute they rely upon.

 

     Statutory objection deadlines listed in N.J.S.A. 19:13-10  apply,

 

as to the Presidential race, only to certificates (major partys) and

 

petitions (independant partys) of nomination for the electors of each

 

party.  As long as such nominations follow statutory rules of

 

construction, which Appellant stipulated below that they

 

did, then such nominations were valid under the statute.   

 

     Furthermore, Appellant doesn't have the legal right to object to

 

a political party's choice of candidate as such party is not a public

 

official or agency, and has no Constitutional or statutory mandate. 

 

As private citizens they may, by law, nominate whoever they like. 

 

     New Jersey voters must rely upon the executive power of the

 

Secretary of State to safeguard the integrity of our electoral process,

 

especially during Presidential cycles when she must be most

 

vigilant of her oath of office.  And if Respondent-Secretary doesn't

 

protect the citizens of New Jersey, then it is up to the citizens of

 

New Jersey to command  her to do so via the eloquent tradition

 

of writ of mandamus which in New Jersey falls under the statute

 

as an  action in lieu of prerogative writs.

 

     Appellant's genuine cause of action accrued on September 22, 2008,

 

when Respondent certified and delivered the 19:13-22 statement to the

 

clerks of the several counties.  The "statement" was a final State agency

 

decision which triggered Appellant's exclusive avenue of action under

 

N.J. Ct. R. 2:2-(a)(2), a direct appeal, as of right, to the Appellate Division. 

 

Since the general limitation for commencing actions in lieu of prerogative

 

writs is set at 45 days, according to N.J. Ct. R. 4:69-6, Appellant was well

 

within such timeframe when he filed a Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative

 

Writs with the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino on October 28, 2008.  

 

   

 

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

 

POINT 1

 

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO EXECUTE HER STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF NEW JERSEY BALLOTS

 

 

     N.J.S.A. 19:13-22  requires the Secretary of State to submit a "statement",

 

prepared by her hand and under her seal of office, to the clerks of the several

 

counties of New Jersey, listing the names,

 

"...of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election".  (Emphasis added.)

 

     Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court that the

 

 purpose of the statement is to instruct the clerks of the several counties

 

of New Jersey as to which candidates are "by law entitled" to have

 

their names printed on the ballots.  This was disputed by Respondent's

 

counsel who argues that the statute's use of the term  "by law entitled",

 

must refer to the actual voters who are eligible to vote, and not to the legal

 

eligibility of the candidates.  Appellant gives this argument no quarter. 

 

     There are various statutes within the code, which govern the citizens as

 

to voting, but this isn't one of them.  The statute isn't about suffrage. It 

 

commands the Secretary of State to protect  voters. 

 

N.J.S.A. 19:13-22:

 

The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election.  This statement, in addition to the names of the candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, if any such have been included in any such certificate or petition filed with him, shall contain the names and residences of all other candidates, the offices for which  they are respectively nominated, and the names of the parties by which or the  political appellation under which they are respectively nominated. Candidates  nominated directly by petition, without distinctive political appellation,  shall be certified as independent candidates.  Similar statements shall be  made, certified and forwarded, when vacancies are filled subsequently, according to law.

 

     As a result of Respondent's misfeasance, New Jersey ballots for the

 

upcoming election contain the names of three Presidential candidates

 

who are not, by law entitled, to hold the office of President of the United

 

States, since they are not "natural born citizens" as is required by Article

 

2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. 

 

    Republican candidate John McCain was born in Panama.  Socialist

 

Workers Party candidate Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua.  And

 

the birthplace of Democratic candidate Barack Obama has not been

 

verified by Respondent. 

 

     The State of New Jersey is granted rights under Article 2, Section 1,

 

of the United States Constitution regarding the issuing of ballots for

 

New Jersey voters as well as the qualifying of candidates to appear on

 

those ballots for the Presidential election.  The executive in charge of

 

maintaining the integrity of New Jersey ballots is deemed to be the

 

Secretary of State by Title 19 of the New Jersey Statute Annotated.

 

     N.J.S.A 19:13-22 provides no safe harbor to:

 

- candidates not entitled by law to appear on New Jersey ballots 

- candidates who might be entitled to appear on New Jersey ballots  

- candidates who probably are entitled to appear on New Jersey ballots

 

     The statute is very specific, the candidates must be by law entitled

 

to appear on the ballots.

 

     Respondent took an oath of office and swore to uphold, not just the

 

Constitution of the State of New Jersey, but also the United States

 

Constitution.  As the executive in New Jersey charged with securing

 

ballots from fraud and deception, her prescribed duty is merged by legal

 

fusion, in that the statutory term, "by law entitled", must  be subordinate

 

to her Constitutional duty as the chief executive in charge of elections who

 

protects the office of President from ineligible candidates.  This is because

 

Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution sets forth the minimum

 

requirements which make candidates, by law entitled, to be eligible to hold

 

the office of President of the United States:

 

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

 

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States

 

Constitution, reads:

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

     Therefore, the requirements of N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 must be interpreted,

 

in so far as the election for President of the United States is concerned,

 

in light of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.  Therefore, the words

 

"by law entitled" in the aforementioned statute must incorporate

 

the requirements for the Presidency set forth in the United States

 

Constitution.

 

     It is not disputed that Secretary Wells conducted no investigation to

 

determine whether the major party candidates for President were

 

constitutionally eligible for the office of President.  She accepted the

 

certifications of nomination from both major parties under the assumption

 

that the candidates were eligible, but she did nothing further to verifiy such

 

eligibility.

 

     Respondent's Counsel's brief in repsonse to Appellant's complaint does

 

not dispute the facts.  Instead, Respondent's Counsel argues that the Secretary

 

of State's role, as to elections in New Jersey, is only clerical:

 

"This matter rests upon Appellant's misreading of a statute.  By misreading a modifying phrase, he has taken what is the Secretary of  State's clerical function under N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 to certify a list of names to county clerks, and manufactured a requirement to broadly investigate the lineage of candidates for the highest federal office."

 

     To that, Appellant argues, if not she, who then is responsible for protecting

 

the integrity of New Jersey's electoral process?  Respondent is named specifically

 

in N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.  The statement required therein is required to be made by

 

her hand, under her seal of office.

 

"A State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies." Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, at 442. "It is clear that preservation of the integrity of the electoral process is a legitimate and valid state goal." Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 761; Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145  (1972).

 

   If the Secretary of State's role is clerical, than who is responsible for Roger

 

Calero appearing on New Jersey ballots?  The official Presidential candidate

 

for the Socialist Workers Party is Roger Calero.  Mr. Calero was born in

 

Nicaragua.  The Socialist Workers Party has gained official access to

 

ballots in ten States that Respondent is aware of.  And, despite the fact

 

that the Socialist Workers Party has qualified to have their chosen candidate

 

listed on those ballots, state election officials from Colorado, Florida, Iowa,

 

Louisiana, and Washington have all, for good and legal cause, refused to

 

list Mr. Calero on the ballots since, having been born in Nicaragua, he is

 

not a "natural born citizen" as is required by Article 1, Section 2, of the

 

United States Constitution.  In those states, a stand-in candidate,

 

Mr. James Harris, has been listed in place of Mr. Calero.

 

     Furthermore, Respondent's counsel, in his reply brief, never discusses

 

Respondent's Constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution, nor does

 

the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino address the Secretary of State's

 

oath of office meets Constitutional nexus in his decision. 

 

     With three ineligible Presidential candidates on their ballots, New Jersey

 

voters will witness firsthand, the fraud their electoral process has become due

 

to Respondent's misfeasance of office.  Appellant respectfully requests emergency

 

relief be granted in order to restore integrity to New Jersey's electoral process.

 

 

COUNT 2

 

CANDIDATES OBAMA, MCCAIN, AND CALERO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY AREN'T NATURAL BORN CITIZENS AS DEFINED BY ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

 

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;

 

 

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE McCAIN

 

Petitioner begins this argument with a conclusion: had the US legislature

 

intended to grant "natural born citizen" status to all who were born on US

 

soil, then the 14th Amendment would contain the words "natural born

 

citizen", but it doesn't. Republican candidate Senator John McCain was

 

born in Panama.  Panama is not considered U.S. soil, nor has it ever been

 

considered as such.  The Naturalization Act of 1790  was the only

 

Congressional act which has ever attempted to confer "natural born

 

citizen" status.  The relevant portion reads as follows:

 

"...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits

of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."

 

     However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 specifically repealed the act of

 

1790 and replaced it with virtually the same clause as that of 1790,

 

except the words "natural born" were deleted and have never been

 

replaced by Congress.  The 1795 act reads as follows:

 

"the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United

States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

 

    So Congress effectively kept the part of that clause which granted

 

citizenship, but repealed the words "natural born" from that level of

 

citizenship.  Congress never again attempted to legislate a definition

 

of  "natural born citizen", and it's probably not even possible for them

 

to do so without a Consitutional Amendment.  The United States

 

Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual at 7FAM1116.1-4(c) states:

 

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

 

     Indeed, it is well established by precedent that children born

 

abroad of United States citizens are not granted citizenship by

 

the Constitution, but rather by statute.  The 14th Amendment

 

states:

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

 

John McCain was neither born on United States soil, nor was he naturalized. 

 

He is a citizen at birth by statute.  This is discussed in the Foreign Affairs Manual:

 

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

 

Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth." Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized citizens under either act. (Emphasis added.)

 

The Constitution confers three types of citizen status:

 

- "natural born citizen", but only with regard to eligibility

to hold the office of President

 

- "citizen" to those born in the United States via the 14th

Amendment

 

- "citizen" to those naturalized in the United States via

the 14th amendment 

 

McCain is none of the above.  He wasn't born on United States

soil and he wasn't naturalized in the United States.  Instead,

McCain may claim citizenship from 8 USC 1403(a):

 

“Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

 

     McCain is in the class of citizens who obtain their citizenship at birth,

 

but not from the Constitution, but rather federal statute. 

 

In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971). The Supreme Court stated:

 

...[C]children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.”… “To this day, the Constitution makes no provision for jus sanguinis, or citizenship by descent... “Our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Id. at 828.

 

So, not being born on US soil, McCain cannot be a "natural born citizen". 

 

The Foreign Affairs Manual weighs in on the issue as follows:

 

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

 

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

 

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President,"

 

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born".

 

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

 

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.  (Emphasis added.)

 

     Appellant would point out that the manual fails to mention that

 

Congress specifically repealed the "natural born" part of the 1790 act. 

 

Recently, the US Senate has issued a resolution stating that McCain

 

is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President, but the resolution

 

has absolutely no legal effect.  It is simply an opinion and as such

 

it holds no authority whatsoever. 

 

     Furthermore, while Congress could have at least attempted

 

to pass legislation granting "natural born citizen" status to

 

children of US citizens born broad such as Senator McCain, Congress

 

has not done so. The 14th Amendment also requires that, in

 

order for citizenship to be conferred thereby, whether born on

 

US soil, or naturalized in the US, the person also be subject to

 

the jurisdiction of the United States.  And because of this caveat,

 

"natural born citizen" status is proved to be a very special

 

requirement specifically necessary for those who would be

 

eligible to the office of President of the United States.  A natural

 

born citizen has no encumbrances or conditions whatsoever

 

upon his citizenship. 

 

    Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly

 

suffered more for this country than most of us ever will.  He has

 

shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask,

 

and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request

 

that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States

 

to remove John McCains name from the ballots.

 

 

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA:

 

    First, I must address, out of respect for Senator Obama, that

 

Judge Sabatino's lower court decision makes an egregious error

 

wherein it states that Appellant suggested Senator Obama's

 

father might have been born in Indonesia.  Appellant never made

 

any such allegation in any of Appellant's papers.  I have been

 

assured by his Honor's clerk that the error will be corrected.

 

     As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama's birth

 

certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point

 

out that Senator Obama has not  been presented with a genuine

 

legal request from a party with proper standing to command

 

him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility

 

to submit or to bend his integrity.  And for that, he certainly

 

deserves respect.

 

     Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal

 

request from a government authority sanctioned to make such

 

request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put

 

this issue behind him forever. 

 

     That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate

 

Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office

 

of President since is not a "natural born citizen" by the Constitution.

 

Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order the

 

Secretaries of the several States to remove Barack Obama's name from

 

the ballots.

       

 

CONCLUSION

 

     Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court, once again,

 

that had the legislature intended to grant "natural born citizen"

 

status to all who were born on US soil, then the 14th Amendment

 

would contain the words "natural born citizen", but it doesn't. 

 

     And so this proposition leads to the logical conclusion that

 

a natural born citizen is a citizen born in the United States to parents,

 

neither of which is an alien.  Having an alien parent would tie such

 

person at birth to the possibility of other loyalties and laws.  And such

 

a person, even if he be as loyal and devoted to this country as Senators

 

Obama and McCain have proven to be, is not eligible to hold the

 

office of President of the United States. 

 

STANDING

 

     Appellant's standing was not challenged in Respondent's reply

 

brief, nor was it challenged in his Honorable Sabatino's order and decision. 

 

However, Appellant discusses the issue below in respect to this most Honorable

 

Court's superior jurisdiction.  In Ridgewood Education Association  v Ridgewood

 

Board Of Education, 284 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. (1995)), the Court stated,

 

"We see no reason why this State's historic liberal approaches to the issue

 

of standing in general....should not apply to taxpayer suits challenging the

 

quasi-legislative actions of local boards of education." Silverman v. Board of Ed.,

 

Tp. of Millburn, 134 N.J. Super. 253, 257-58 (Law Div.), aff'd o.b. 131 N.J. Super.

 

435 (App. Div. 1975).

 

     The policies of justice regarding the sanctity of voting rights were also

 

stated in New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson, 175 N.J. 178,

 

814 A.2d 1028 (October 2, 2002).  Although the petitioner bringing

 

suit in that case was a political party, the voting rights discussed

 

and protected were those of individuals.  Therefore, the reasoning

 

of that case should apply when the petitioner is an individual voter. 

 

     Appellant's fundamental right to vote for a candidtae who will not be

 

disqualified after the election is now threatened by the inclusion on

 

New Jersey ballots of three ineligible candidates.

 

"When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter." Bush v. Gore,  531 U.S 5, 6 (2000)

 

     And finally, Appellant's fundamental right to live in the United States

 

governed by a President and Commander In Chief who is Constitutionally

 

eligible to the office of President is also threatened.  Since this action is so very

 

grounded in the interests of justice, and supported by all of the above,

 

Appellant respectfully requests that this court recognize his standing.

 

FINAL CONCLUSION

 

     Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court that while the

 

limitations of our Constitution may at times appear unfair, it is important

 

to remember that it is the restrictions which hold us to the Document, as much

 

as it is the freedoms that bind us together as a nation.

 

 

 

 

 

"I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware

that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I

am subject to punishment."  

 

___________________________________, November 3rd, 2008

Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se

 

 

(The US Supreme Court has denied Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases action without a discussion on the merits. Therefore the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship has not been settled yet by the SCOTUS, leaving the issue open for more suits until resolved on the merits of the issues.)

 

Question 46:

Yes, I have read Donofrio’s pleading with the US Supreme Court but I don’t understand it. Can anybody explain this to me in plain language?

 

Answer:

This is a good summary from http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com

Friday, December 5, 2008

The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge

Your Guide to the Legal Challenges of Barack Obama’s Candidacy, to be continually updated

Item I: The Donofrio Case: "Natural Born Citizen" -- not about Obama's birth certificate, but the one that goes, "We the People...."

 

Today, before the United States Supreme Court lies Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State. This suit was received by Justice Thomas and by the determination of the entire court, it is scheduled for conference on Friday December 5. This conference is held to decide what, if any, further steps should be taken. Only two of these steps would be to either intervene in the process of selecting the president, or to hear oral arguments.

Essence of the case

By this case Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero (of the Socialist Workers Party, on the New Jersey ballot) do not qualify as “natural born Citizens” under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which states the following:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Standing

Other cases against Obama's candidacy have been rejected by various courts, due to a private citizen's apparent lack of standing to sue a candidate. However, this case is an action against the Secretary of State of New Jersey and as such, has precedent, as Donofrio relates. He originally sought to motivate the Secretary to qualify or disqualify these three candidates on the New Jersey ballot. Donofrio also cites 2000's famous Florida case, Bush v. Gore, as precedent for a state case regarding a presidential election to be brought to the Supreme Court for emergency action.

Merit: reasoning behind Donofrio v. Wells

To interpret the U.S. Constitution with intellectual honesty, one must maintain the integrity of the meaning of the Constitution. That means interpreting the letter of the law: its words and phrases, based upon the immediate context of the Constitution itself, any explanations of the framers, traditional meaning inherited by the framers, and the generally accepted, legal meanings of words and phrases in use at the time of its drafting. Further, attention is to be paid to the spirit of the law, by understanding the purposes of the framers and the results they sought or sought to avoid, as they drafted each element of the Constitution.

In view of these considerations, being a “natural born Citizen,” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: 1. citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship and, 2. citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution's framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward. To cite Donofrio's own words from his blog:

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.

According to this case, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan. Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama II’s birth in 1961. This citizenship was conferred to Obama II by U.K. law. Further to this case is the apparent fact that Obama II became a citizen of Indonesia, when he lived there as a child with his mother and adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. This would mean Obama's U.S. Citizenship status was revoked, since Indonesia had no dual-citizenship provision with the U.S.A.

According to this case, John McCain is not qualified, because he was born in Panama or the Panama Canal Zone, which was a protectorate of the United States and has never been a territory of the Untied States, even though his parents were U.S. Citizens.

According to this case, Roger Calero is not qualified, because he was born a citizen of Nicaragua, to foreign parents, on foreign soil. The mere fact that Roger Calero was on the ballot in five states indicates to the Supreme Court and the nation, that the process of qualifying a presidential candidate is broken and intervention is necessary.

Merit: context, corroboration, and case law

Corroborative to this case, the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 states that a power of Congress is to "define and punish... offenses against the law of nations." The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Vatel follows with paragraph 215, in which he asserts, "It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say 'of itself,' for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise."

The chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham corroborated this dual criteria stating, "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." An extensive analysis citing this is "Defining Natural-Born Citizen," by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog.

Since then, the case of Perkins v. ELG, U.S. 325 (1939) provides precedent for requiring these two criteria, for one to be called a "native born citizen" (see, "The Law -- Perkins v. ELG," blog, The Betrayal).

St. George Tucker, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virgina, wrote a version of the authoritative Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution... which became a recognized resource for determining the framers' original intent. In his Volume 1 -- Appendix; Note D, he explained that the Article 2 "natural born Citizen" requirement was purposed to avoid competing allegiances:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, whereever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

Certainly, this applied to sons of subjects of the United Kingdom (and the fact that one such subject would travel abroad to declare himself a "Citizen of the World" before hundreds of thousands might also have provided relevant warning).

Intended result of this case

The Donofrio suit calls for a stay of the Dec. 15 Electoral College vote, until a constitutionally acceptable means is attained, of presenting the Electors a set of qualified candidates.

During or after their Dec. 5 conference, the Supreme Court could decide upon a number of directions. Their next step may be revealed this very day, or on Monday, Dec. 8, or at some other time. A book could be written of the many potential outcomes -- and historians will write libraries about one set of results, in their hindsight.

"Post Script" in HTML

Leo Donofrio reports that numerous obstacles have been intentionally placed in the way of his petitioning the courts, in both New Jersey and at the Supreme Court. He also names public officials who have at times attempted to mislead him and by their treatment of his case, have obstructed his path to the Supreme Court. That is another story and not an undramatic one.

Donofrio has had three blogs -- and Internet harassment, as follows:

  1. http://blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen -- used through November 21, until its blog service was hit by a denial of service attack, bringing it down (servers have been repaired)
  2. http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com -- used through November 27, until it became clear that Google has not been at all swift to remove a "flag page," inappropriately citing that blog for "possible Blogger Terms of Service violations"
  3. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com -- hopefully, unmolested as of your reading

This report may be updated as progress is made. For information about the operations of the Supreme Court in such matters, see "A Reporter's Guide to Applications Pending Before the Supreme Court of the United States."

(The US Supreme Court has denied Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases action without a discussion on the merits. Therefore the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship has not been settled yet by the SCOTUS, leaving the issue open for more suits until resolved on the merits of the issues.)

 

Question 47:

According to US jurisprudence what is meant by “natural born citizen”?

 

Answer:

It is the US Supreme Court that is the final arbiter of what is the definition of “natural born” because that is their job.

 

However, scholarly articles summarize the current state of jurisprudence that could be used to determine if somebody is a natural born or not.

 

This is one of them. Try to read the background information.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

 

“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.”

 

Question 48:

Is there any jurisprudence that could be used to analyze Barack Obama’s citizenship?

Answer:

The Donofrio pleading mentioned above is a good source of authorities on Barack’s case.

 

If that is too much for non-lawyers to digest, here is an excellent analysis from http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=401

Here is an updated case that gives examples of the citizenship classification.  The case is Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).  It expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s case definition of nationality (below).  But the key is this case gives examples of what a citizen of the US is and what a native-born citizen (or natural born citizen) of the US is.  Attached is the case with highlights.

 

Here is a chart of the facts and the Supreme Court’s holding in the case.  The Supreme Court will have to consider Obama ineligible to be President based on the two cases.  The problem for Obama is that his father was a foreigner (Kenyan Citizen) and Obama will never be considered natural born (or native born) of this country.
 

Facts

 

 

Supreme Court Holding

 

 

Citizenship Matrix

 

 

Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year.  Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).

 

 

Elg is a citizen of the United States.  Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939).

 

 

1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 US citizen parent (naturalized by US statute)

 

AND

 

Born in Brooklyn, NY (USA)

 

 

The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.  Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).

 

 

‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.

 

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).

 

 

2 US Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by US statute)

 

AND

 

Born in St. Louis, MO (USA)

 

 

 

There’s now absolute proof that Obama and his Chicago political Mafia has been plotting this circumvention of the US Constitution, for which he has such disdain.  The Obama camp has been studying ways to change the Constitutional requirements for President for some time now.

Remember, Obama taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago as a “senior lecturer.”  He KNOWS, and the DNC KNOWS, that Obama does not meet the standards of Section 1 of Article II of the US Constitution.

 

 

Another good chart is from

 http://theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart.htm

Natural Born Citizen Chart

People are confused because they don't understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms.  This chart that shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in Caselaw by the Supreme Court.

 

For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. in 2008 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).  As you can clearly see, Obama is a U. S. citizen, but he's not a "natural born citizen" and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was a foreigner.  His birth certificate is only relevant to answer the question, "what does Obama have to hide?"

 

Constitutional Term

 

Parents

Conjunction

 (And, Or)

Location of Birth

Conjunction

 (And, Or)

 

Other

 

Legal Reference

Natural Born Citizen

Both are U. S. Citizens

AND

Born in the U.S. mainland

 

 

-          U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5

-          U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

-          Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

 

Citizen of the U.S.

Born to at least 1 US Citizen Parent (under federal statute)

OR

Born in the U.S. mainland

OR

Naturalized Citizen

-          U.S. Const. 14th Amend., Sec. 1

-          U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

-          Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

 

Native Born Citizen

 

 

Born in the U.S. mainland

 

 

-          U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

-          Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”

 

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along  the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother? After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen? This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

 

 

Question  49:

Can you clarify the case of US vs. Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett.

Answer:

Atty Leo Donofrio explains:

 

I get more questions about United States v. Wong Kim Ark than any other case.  Recently, Steve Marquis wrote to me and asked for a clarification about this.  Steve is the person who first sued the Washington Secretary of State back in October.  I was inspired by Steve’s action to file my own suit.

 

I now find this all irrelevant since if the court was ever going to uphold the Constitution, it would have done so by now on this issue. 

 

But, out of respect for Steve’s effort and the overall confusion this case has caused on the natural born citizen issue, I’ve written the following explanation thereto in the hope that the current court will receive no historical cover from Wong Kim Ark as none is due.

 

In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”.  And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.  The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

 

‘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 (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of  natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc .

 

In Minor, they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama.  As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.“

 

[UPDATE: 12:11 PM ...(thanks to reader "rossalgondamer" for pointing out the following). The Court in Minor refused to say that a person born in the US to parents who were foreigners was a " natural born citizen" - as I've stated in the original post here - but the reader points out that the Minor court also refused to say whether such a person was even a "citizen" at all.

 

I will add to the reader's comment by pointing out that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark cited Minor, but Minor doesn't really support the holding in Wong Kim Ark, it's just that Gray's opinion makes it look like it does.

 

US History desperately needs to consider whether Justice Gray's appointment by Chester Arthur infected the opinion he wrote in Wong Kim Ark, since that opinion looks more and more dodgy every day in that it has the appearance of sanitizing Chester Arthur's citizenship problems as to POTUS eligibility since his father was not naturalized until Chester was 14, as we recently discovered, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth, just like Obama. ]

 

For the purposes of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court didn’t need to reach the “natural born citizen” issue as neither person was running for President, so they rightfully punted by limiting their holdings to the issue of  whether each person was a “citizen”.

 

But they discussed the “natural born citizen” issue thoroughly.  Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark quoted this EXACT passage from Minor.  And in doing so, Justice Gray and the court punted on whether Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen” specifically limiting their holding to state that the person was a “citizen”.

 

There’s a clear distinction made in the Wong Kim Ark case between “natural born citizens” and “citizens”.  Justice Gray’s majority opinion said Wong Kim Ark was a “Citizen” but went no further than that.  He cleverly evaded the issue of whether a person born in the US to parents who weren’t citizens was a “natural born citizen” although a lazy reader of the case might come away with the wrong impression.  (Intentional?)  Since Wong Kim Ark wasn’t running for President, they were able to punt:

 

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. ” (Emphasis added.)

 

They held that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” but they did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen”. 

 

And Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case wherein the Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nations definition of “natural born citizen” as being the only definition which is free of doubt.

 

I have stated over and again that the Wong Kim Ark decision supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen in that the court clearly had the chance in the Wong Kim Ark opinion to define “natural born citizen” as being inclusive of persons born in the United States to foreign parents… but they didn’t.

 

And so, as is so very clearly established by the supreme court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, there are now, and have always been, doubts about whether people born in the US to foreign parents are “natural born citizens”, or, as the Court in Minor discussed, whether such persons are even “citizens”.

 

Certainly, since Minor came down in 1873 and the Supreme Court then refused to confirm or deny whether persons born in the US to foreign parents were even citizens, then at the time Chester Arthur ran for Vice President in 1880, the issue of whether he was even a citizen was in doubt.   The issue of whether he was a “natural born citizen” therefore leaves no doubt.  He wasn’t, and either is Obama.  But this isn’t the same United States.  Back then we had a Constitution.  Now we don’t.

 

Those “doubts” mentioned in Minor needed to be discussed and adjudicated by the current supreme court.  But they didn’t have the right stuff to take the issue on.  And that makes them neither supreme nor even willing to live up to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

 

Not one of them had the decency to at least issue an opinion to the nation as to why the applications were denied.

 

Instead of respecting the citizens who took time, money and risk to bring these actions, those citizens were subjected to the most bizarre clerical behavior this lawyer of seventeen years has ever seen or could ever imagine.

 

Neither Obama nor McCain was eligible.  Calero was obviously not eligible having been removed from the ballots in five states.

 

The Secretaries of several States claim no authority to remove names from ballots or to determine who is eligible to be President, but five of them did just that as to Calero.  He was the official Socialist Workers Party candidate for President, but the party was forced to remove his name and substitute that of James Harris in five states.

 

Is this just racism vs. Latin Americans or what?

 

McCain’s birth certificate proves he was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama.  Colon is a big city in Panama and Colon Hospital was not part of any military installation.  Calero was born in Nicaragua.

   

 

Question 50:

If the US Supreme Court decides that Obama is not qualified under our constitution what will be the likely outcome?

 

Answer:

There is no verified answer to this but here is a theory:

 

The electors (as won by the various parties in the various states) would be "free" to vote as they wish.

 

Much like when Greeley (1872) died before the college voted. Electors could vote for others (mostly of their same party).

 

That would likely mean that Clinton would be the next president.

 

Dennis C

Question 51:

The lower courts and the SCOTUS have steadfastly denied certs or dismissed cases brought before it regarding the proof of Obama’s alleged claim that he is a natural born citizen, does this mean that these cases are frivolous and time wasting exercises?

Answer:

So far, the cases have been dismissed on technical issues like locus standi (proper standing as a party litigant) and wrong remedy availed of.

 

There is yet to be a trial on the merits of the case (in fact and in law). The questions of fact (Obama’s long-form vault 1961 typerwritten birth certificate) and the questions of law (Obama’s father is a British citizen, therefore Obama was not born to both American parents) have not been squarely addressed by any court.

 

This means that:

1.     No “stare decisis”

2.     No “res judicata”

 

Therefore, the courts and the SCOTUS have left themselves open to possibly thousands of cases until a trial or decision “on the merits” that will set the “stare decisis” or the “res judicata” of the Obama citizenship issue shall have been conducted. (Read about these terms in the internet.)

 

The issues here are both procedural and constitutional and therefore not frivolous and not a waste of time.

How in the world could a person apply in writing that he is eligible to the position of President of the US get away with it without have to provide the proof behind his positive allegation that he is qualified? How come no government worker or official required him to prove that his allegation is true? How come no court or government agency will do the work of verification when thousands of citizens have specifically challenged the candidate to provide proof of his own allegation? If that is the case, any foreigner can apply for POTUS and can refuse to show proof?

 

These are questions that need to be resolved once and for all. The people are not requiring Obama to fly in the air or to walk on water. They are simply asking him to prove his own allegation using the best evidence legally acceptable that shows the real circumstances of his birth which in turn will help the courts decided if he is really a natural born citizen.

 

The constitution is at stake in this issue. How could anybody be sure that the President they have is not a foreigner as mandated by the constitution?

 

Question 52:

What are the cases filed with courts regarding Obama’s birth certificate or citizenship?

 

Answer:

There are several cases but the more famous ones are:

 

Donofrio vs. Wells (New Jersey)

Status: Set for conference on December 5, 2008 at the US Supreme Court.

      http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

(The US Supreme Court has denied Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases action without a discussion on the merits. Therefore the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship has not been settled yet by the SCOTUS, leaving the issue open for more suits until resolved on the merits of the issues.)

 

Berg vs. Obama (Pennsylvania)   

Status: Comments from parties to be submitted by Dec. 1, 2008 ordered by US SC. Previously, dismissed at lower courts by Berg’s lack of standing (no locus standi); no actual trial on the merits conducted

            http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

 

Keyes vs. Bowen (California)

Keyes is a US presidential candidate on the California ballot

Status: Filed Nov 13, 2008; not resolved yet

 

Lightfoot vs. Bowen (California)

Lightfoot was a 2008 Presidential Candidate; Filed Dec 3, 2008 (Ready for filing with the US Supreme Court after dismissed in the lower courts).

 

Martin vs. Lingle (Hawaii)

Status: Dismissed Nov. 21, 2008 at circuit court level due to lack of standing; no trial on the merits

 

Cort Wrotnowski vs. Bysiewicz (CONNECTICUT)

Status: Filed Nov. 2, 2008, dismissed; now at US Supreme Court Nov 25, 2008; dismissed by SC. Could be re-filed with another Justice.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

 

Question 53:

What is the status of the legal actions against Obama’s citizenship?

 

Answer:

The latest update is found here http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

 

Eligibility Lawsuits

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

Use ChangeDetection.com to monitor this page.

Latest and the Greatest - December 31, 2008, 1:00 PM (PDF brochure)

At the Supreme Court (see “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar): Latest update: 01/07/09

  • Pennsylvania (Phil Berg): (12/26/08)
    • DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009 / January 16, 2009
    • Berg v. Obama
  • California (Dr. Orly Taitz for Gail Lightfoot): (01/07/09)
  • New York (Christopher Strunk): (12/04/08) SCOTUS Docket number unknown
  • Texas (Darrel Hunter): (12/01/08) SCOTUS Docket number unknown

Procedurally Active

At the State level: Latest update: 01/07/09

Other Reports: (12/26/08)

The following presumably does not include all above action:

  • Phil Berg mentioned another Berg v. Obama case under seal at this time
  • Georiga: Filed December 2008
  • Alabama: Filed December 2008
  • Illinois: Filed December 2008
  • Michigan: Filed December 2008
  • Virginia: Challenge
  • Ohio: Challenge
  • California: Legal action
  • North Carolina: Legal action
  • Massachusetts: Challenge
  • Maryland: Commitment from numerous individuals to file a challenge
  • Virgin Islands: Commitment to file a challenge

Seeking an Attorney (12/24/08)

  • Ms. Cris Ericson: Ericson v. Obama (12/24/08)
    • Challenging Obama’s birth certificate

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:

 

Question 54:

What are some related websites I can visit for more info?

Answers:

Some related URLs

    African Press International

    America Must Know

America's Right

Atlas Shrugs

    The Bulletin (Philadelphia)

    Cao's Blog

    Citizens for the United States Constitution

    Citizen Wells

    Contrarian Commentary

    Crosstalk America

    Faith2Action

    FreeRepublic

    Hillary and Me

    Illuminati Pictures (producer of videos)

    Natural Born Citizen

    The New Media Journal

NewsWithViews

    ObamaCrimes.com

    PeoplesPassions.org

    Polarik's Townhall Blog

    RenewAmerica

    Texas Darlin (TD)

    U.S. Justice Foundation

    USA Wakeup

    We The People Foundation

    WorldNetDaily

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Before I start reading this lengthy FAQ is there a brute force resolution, a Gordian knot solution to this so-called Barack Obama birth certificate controversy? Why all the fuss about his birth?

 

2.     Barack Obama is on the ballot of every state. Certainly, this means that he filed his candidacy and made allegations in his candidacy in all these states that he is a natural born citizen.

 

3.     Does Obama’s eligibility for President of the US (POTUS) rest entirely on the facts found in his LONG FORM certificate of live birth, or in what country he was born?

 

4.     What is this Barack Obama birth certificate controversy all about?

 

5.     What is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?

 

6.     What are the possible birth situations that give rise to a citizenship question?

 

7.     Does it matter if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not?

 

8.     Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, but his mother was an American citizen, therefore, Barack is a natural born citizen, regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or in Hawaii. So what’s the fuss all about? Surely, Barack is a natural born citizen!

 

9.     Where was Barack Obama born?

 

10. Granting that Obama was born in Honolulu, as he claimed, in which hospital was he born?

 

11. Are there indirect proofs that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?

 

12. If it is true that Obama was born in Kenya, then how come he has a registration of birth in Hawaii?

 

13. But the Hawaii Director of Health has confirmed that Obama’s original birth certificate is with them! So that’s the end of it!!!

 

14. Is there a difference between “Certificate” and Certification” of Live Birth?

 

15. Hawaii, one of our states of the Union, the United States of America:  Can they be obligated by a higher authority to present the vault copy?

 

16. Is it true that Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, the First President of the Republic of China, a great Chinese hero obtained his own “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?”

 

17. What are the reasons given by Obama or his supporters for refusing to give the LONG FORM when a critical position such as Presidency is at stake?

 

18. Is the SHORT FORM of the CLOB enough for Obama to prove his natural born citizenship for the very powerful position of President of the US?

 

19. Isn’t Obama’s SHORT FORM of CLOB a conclusive proof of citizenship?

 

20.  Is a SHORT-FORM birth certificate acceptable for applying a US Passport?

 

21. Read the decision from the court of Virginia. It ruled that there's no material difference between the long form and the short form.

 

22. Releasing the long form will do more harm than good. It violates the privacy of Obama's health record (protected by HIPAA law).

 

23. Releasing the long form also sets the bad precedent whereby every voter (who must be a US citizen to vote) will now be questioned as to his legitimacy and will now be required to dig up his long form prior to voting.

 

24. Nowhere is it written that everyone should present their long form to prove their US citizenship. The short form has always been adequate.

 

25. Barack Obama has been a Senator, surely he is citizen of the US?

 

26. What are common transactions in the US that require a “birth certificate”?

 

27. I am staring at his COLB and at the bottom of the page, it says that this document constitutes "prima facie evidence of the fact of birth...".

 

28. But Barack Obama has shown his birth certificate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the status of the legal actions against Obama’s citizenship?

 

What are some related websites I can visit for more info?

Comments