As another lawsuit, filed by Andy Martin in Hawaii, falls unfavorably toward the plaintiff, it occurred to me that the majority of these cases were filed not so much in defense of our Constitution but as an attention getter from those who seek public notoriety.
A lingering question still remains as to the natural born citizenship status of Barack Hussein Obama. He claims to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and has presented a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) to the Daily Kos and factcheck.org, as well as his own site, fightthesmears.com and it has supposedly been authenticated.
Many concerns surround the COLB posted on these websites. Many forensic experts claim it a forgery. See youtube video below:
Personally, I'm not impressed by the credence of this argument but I do realize that according to Hawaiian law in effect during 1961, Hawaiian citizens who gave birth outside the country were able to register those births in Hawaii within one year. This could be a distinct possibility because Obama's paternal grandmother insisted while being interviewed that she witnessed his birth in Mombasa, Kenya.
Additionally, Obama's father, a Kenyan on a student visa, was not a U.S. citizen. At the time Kenya fell under the British protectorate so technically, at birth, Obama possibly became a citizen of Kenya, Great Britain, and the United States.
To further complicate matters, Obama's parents divorced when he was two years old and four years later his mother remarried an Indonesian national, Lolo Soetoro, and the family moved to Jakarta. Mr. Soetoro registered young Obama in school as an Indonesian citizen, listing his name as Barry Soetoro and his religion as Islam.
So the matter that should be decided by a competent jurisdiction is:
a) Can natural born status be conferred upon an individual born with divided loyalties against the intent of our founding fathers?
b) Did Obama lose his American citizenship in Indonesia and then later regain it as a naturalized, not natural born, citizen?
The internet abounds with chatter about this situation but in reality, it needs to be addressed in the proper venue which ultimately would be the Supreme Court of the United States.
The major problem faced appears to be the credibility of the parties filing these lawsuits. I'm aware of at least 39 lawsuits that have been filed throughout the country either questioning Obama's eligibility or seeking access to the vault copy of his birth certificate. Most of these have already been dismissed but others are open and have received a fair amount of publicity, especially from the more conservatively slanted news sources.
The first suit I became aware of was filed before the Democratic National Convention by Hillary Clinton supporter Phillip Berg. Unfortunately, many of the suits that followed Berg's based their content on supposed Berg discovery; much of which stands as still unsubstantiated claims. To worsen the situation, Berg's reputation for filing frivolous lawsuits precedes him. In response to the Gore vs. Bush decision in 2000, Berg filed asking Justices Scalia, O'Connor, and Thomas to voluntarily disbar themselves for not recusing themselves from the case due to conflicts of interest. After 9-11, Berg, claiming that the twin towers were destroyed by the American government, and filed suit against George Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against humanity. Berg vs. Obama, already dismissed by two Pennsylvania lower court now sits at the US Supreme Court. The Obama camp has filed a waiver not to respond. Based on his prior history, Berg has almost no chance to further this case at the federal level. The Supreme Court has not even yet scheduled a conference. It is unlikely that they will even consider the matter.
The next highly publicized case was filed by the colorful litigator, Andy Martin. Martin has been sanctioned at many different judicial levels for being a vexatious litigant, noting that he has a tendency to file suits of a frivolous and scandalous nature. He's also run for numerous political offices as a Democrat, a Republican and an Independent. Martin filed in Honolulu Circuit Court requesting access to Obama's long form vault birth certificate. Judge Ayabe conducted an abbreviated hearing on November 18th, took the matter under advisement, and ruled on the 20th denying Mr. Martin access to the document.
Another case sitting before the U.S. Supreme court was filed by retired lawyer and professional poker player Leo Donofrio. Mr. Donofrio appealed to the Supreme Court after his case was rejected by New Jersey Courts. He challenges the citizenship of Barack Obama, John McCain and Socialist Party candidate, Roger Colera. The Supreme Court has actually scheduled a closed door conference for December 5th to determine whether they will address this case. Is this a legitimate suit or just another publicity stunt from the fame seeking Leo Donofrio?
Many bogus cases have been blogged about. The most notorious by a fellow named "Wild Bill" and supposedly filed in Virginia. No one has been able to determine any docketing in any Virginia jurisdiction regarding this matter; just another example of web based "hot air".
Currently, the most credible case to date must be the one filed last week in California Superior Court by the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes, and two electors from America's Independence Party. Keyes, an ambassador under Ronald Reagan, may possess a less tainted reputation than either Berg or Martin, but he's also known as a perennial political loser. In fact, just during 2008, he lost the Republican primary, the Constitution Part primary and then basically nominated himself as the candidate from AIP. Mr. Keyes, as a candidate on many states' ballots, does appear to have standing in the matter, unlike Phillip Berg. But, will the courts look at Mr. Keyes with a legitimate claim, or for just being a sore loser?
Herein lies the problem. Do we have a string of media hounds seeking personal notoriety taking right wing Americans for a ride? I'm certain that's how it appears to the liberal media and the majority of America's courts. There exists a legitimate concern that should be addressed prior to the electoral college meeting in December but we desperately need a competent plaintiff with a sterling reputation as well as legal standing to come forward. Sir or ma'am, where are you?
2 comments:
Re: "I do realize that according to Hawaiian law in effect during 1961, Hawaiian citizens who gave birth outside the country were able to register those births in Hawaii within one year."
Yes, but you could NOT register that the person was born in Hawaii if the person was not born in Hawaii. There is a good reason for this. If anyone could merely assert that his child was born in Hawaii, and that was used to grant a birth document that said the person was born in Hawaii, that person would be a US citizen.
Hawaii is sensible enough not to do that.
And Obama's certification of live birth says that he was born in Hawaii. (It says it three times, under location of birth, county of birth and island of birth.) They would not issue a document saying that Obama was born in Honlulu if he were born in Kenya or if they did not know where he was born.
And the certification of live birth has been authenticated by the officials in Hawaii, who said the looked into the files and were able to confirm from the documents in the files that the certification of live birth is accurate.
On November 6, 2008, I wrote a Guest Editorial for TREOWTH.BLOGSPOT.COM contending that the "election" of Obama and Biden was null and void ab initio mainly because Obama was not a "natural born U.S. citizen" and, therefore, not qualified to run for the the Presidency of the U.S.
I have closely followed ALL the pending cases on this issue and will send my own personal letter to Chief Justice John Roberts early next week in time for the SCOTUS deliberation of the Donofrio case.
In my letter to C.J. Roberts, I will appeal to his conscience and that of the Court's and to consider the following arguments:
* that the Obama birth certificate issue is an EXCEPTIONAL case that requires waiver of the Court's procedural rules as to mootness, standing and political doctrine;
* that the matter before them is not a political issue but, rather, a CONSTITUTIONAL issue that goes to the very foundation of this Republic;
* that the Presidency of the U.S. is NOT a property of Obama and that, therefore, he is NOT entitled to "due process law" as guaranteed by the Constitution to "citizens of the United States"; Obama may in fact be an illegal alien subject to deportation.
The United States Supreme Court needs to open its eyes wide and clear that its own existence is at stake here.
WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, should not stand idly by and watch with our own naked eyes the birth in this country a "TOTALITARIAN REGIME BY ACQUIESCENCE."
Post a Comment