.

WHAT HAPPENED AT OBAMA-NO-SHOW TRIAL

Sworn testimony reveals fake Social Security number, other gaps

Published: 1 day ago
by JEROME R. CORSI, Archive

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Along with serving as WND's senior staff reporter, Corsi is a senior managing director at Gilford Securities. Gilford Securities, founded in 1979, is a full-service boutique investment firm headquartered in NYC providing financial services to institutional and retail clients, from investment banking and equity research to retirement


Georgia citizens today delivered sworn testimony to a court that Barack Obama is slam-dunk disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state, because his father never was a U.S. citizen, which prevents him from qualifying as a “natural-born citizen” as the U.S. Constitution requires for a president.

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.

The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Several of the attorneys introduced passages from Obama’s own writings that Barack Obama Sr. was his father. They then introduced evidence that the father never was a U.S. citizen, that he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his son’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.

His father’s citizenship, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a “citizen.”

The term is not defined in the Constitution, but evidence introduced included a passage from a 1875 Supreme Court opinion that states:”The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.”

The attorney argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling.

Many of Irion’s arguments were echoed by Hatfield, a strategy that at least one constitutional expert, Herb Titus, said was sound.

Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Mo.

He told WND the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen should be sufficient.

“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” he said. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.”

Taitz argued multiple prongs of the case: that the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery; that he probably has had several citizenships, such as when he was listed in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen; and that he’s been known under the names Obama, Soetoro and Soebarkah.

She also had a private investigator, Susan Daniels, testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.

Documents and imaging expert Doug Vogt asserted the birth documentation released by the White House was a creation of a software program and not a scan of any original document. That would mean Obama’s documentation, despite what the White House released in April, is still under wraps.

Obama and his attorney boycotted the proceedings, issuing a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.” The statement came after Malihi refused to quash a subpoena for Obama’s testimony and his records, which effectively was ignored by the White House.

The judge is expected to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the state whether there is reason to be concerned about Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.

He apparently will have no defense evidence, but Kemp had warned Obama about that.

[Georgia Secretary of State] Kemp said late last night in a response to a demand from Obama’s attorney that he simply order the hearing stopped.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”

But the judge thought otherwise.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.

Jablonski also had argued that the state should mind its own business.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.

Titus said, “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning. Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is … one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”


www.wnd.com . . .


.

Fingers crossed that the Judge will come back with a decision that will smack obama up-side the head and remove him from the ballot.

It would be better yet if the judge could deport the sorry ass 'coon dog.

No one actually expected Obama to show up, did they? Barry already has a team of political lawyers working on ways to neutralize this latest attack.

In my mind, this court case raises several interesting questions.

If the Secretary of State for Georgia refuses to allow Obammy's name to appear on the ballot - then other states are sure to follow. Even if only a dozen or so states follow suit, Zero is fucked.

The next issue that must be dealt with is ol' Willard and the fact that his father was a Mexican citizen. Ipso facto, Willard can't be President either. He has the same issue - not a Natural-Born citizen.

That would screw the Repub's establishment royally. Since I consider them to be just as bad as the Donk establishment ... couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of dicktards.

I think the best bet here is to eastablish Obama having declared scitizenship fraudulently by faking birth inside the US.

The "Natural Born" Citizen is not clearly defined anywhere so it may be tricky getting this to stick to Obama as he could have been born outside the US to one US Citizen parent and, under certain circumstances, still be considered a citizen at birth.

Even if this was the case, though, Obambi would still be guilty of acquiring his citizenship through fraudulent means since his claim is being born in Hawaii.

According to US Citizenship laws:

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[8]:

The person's parents were married at the time of birth
One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

chevy wrote:

Fingers crossed that the Judge will come back with a decision that will smack obama up-side the head and remove him from the ballot.

From your fingers on the keyboard to God's laptop screen.

ReBourne wrote:

It would be better yet if the judge could deport the sorry ass 'coon dog.

After he serves hard time for fraud.

Maybe, if enough states get on with this and find him ineligible to serve in the presidency, it will go federal and he can be sent to Kenya or Indonesia.

he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his son’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.

don't try shifting the blame on us

Bat2 wrote:

I think the best bet here is to eastablish Obama having declared scitizenship fraudulently by faking birth inside the US.

The "Natural Born" Citizen is not clearly defined anywhere so it may be tricky getting this to stick to Obama as he could have been born outside the US to one US Citizen parent and, under certain circumstances, still be considered a citizen at birth.

Even if this was the case, though, Obambi would still be guilty of acquiring his citizenship through fraudulent means since his claim is being born in Hawaii.

According to US Citizenship laws:

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[8]:

The person's parents were married at the time of birth
One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

The last one is the one that fucks NObama. Stanley Ann Durham was hatched on November 29, 1942.
en.wikipedia.org . . .

Which means her 14th Birthday was Nov 29 1956. Which would make her legally eligible to pass on her US citizenship to a child on Nov 29, 1961.

But she shat out Brokeass Hussein NObama on August 4, 1961. Which is 117 days early.
en.wikipedia.org . . .

Also, did the US recognize plural marriages as legal then? Because the baby daddy was already married when he "married" Stanley.

Which is why NObama CANNOT appeal this case. If the Supreme Court gets this he's TOAST!

OldCujo wrote:

No one actually expected Obama to show up, did they? Barry already has a team of political lawyers working on ways to neutralize this latest attack.

Obama will ignore the whole thing if he's not polling well in Georgia and doesn't need the electoral votes.

My guess is he'll blow off the Georgia state court on this and then appeal at the federal level where he can forum shop for a liberal judge or get a judge he can bribe with a higher appointment if he plays ball with Obama.

The only risk he runs is that other states will follow suit and he'll be dealling with a dozen cases like this.

.

Given:

1) He can't risk producing the obviously fraudulent BC in court.
2) He can't afford to have too many States leave him off the ballot.

The POS might try declaring martial law and taking over the courts and election boards of several states "due to corruptive practices." ... this, of course could lead to a confrontation of armed state vs federal forces and possibly street riots. Or he might simply order his union thugs and Holder's "our people" to riot, giving him the excuse for declaring martial law and replacing the "corrupt" election boards and judges with people he can trust.

One thing's for sure, "the Chicago way" doesn't include giving up power peacefully. A lot of power is amassed on both sides waiting for a spark.



.