OBAMA’S GAMBLE: POSSESSION NINE TENTHS OF THE LAW - By Devvy Kidd
While the disgraced mainstream media continues to ignore the constitutional crisis regarding Obama’s birth certificate, we the people will not be deterred from getting the truth.
Over the past two weeks I have received thousands of emails (which I cannot respond to one on one) from enraged Americans over Judge R. Barclay Surrick’s decision in Berg v. Obama, et al (see here). Americans are energized and faxed their state officials demanding Obama’s eligibility for ballot qualification be investigated. The responses from these elected public servants all provided basically the same response, here are just two:
“While the Secretary of State certifies candidates for the ballot, each political party is legally responsible for choosing the candidate they wish to place on the ballot.” Sincerely, Legislative and Constituent Affairs Secretary of State (California)
“The Florida Department of State does not have investigative or enforcement authority to ensure that major parties candidates are properly qualified to be President of the United States. The U.S. Constitution establishes the qualifying requirements for President. Under Florida law, the way in which a major party’s candidate is placed on the ballot is that the state executive committee of each political party submits its slate of presidential electors for its candidate before September 1st of each presidential election year; then, by law, the names of candidates are printed on the ballot. Those candidates are not required to provide any documents to the State that they meet the qualifications for office.
“The Florida Secretary of State performs only a ministerial function. So, the Secretary has no authority or duty to look beyond the filing documents to determine if a candidate is eligible. If a candidate (or the party in the case of a major political party nominating someone as a Presidential candidate) files the necessary paperwork, which papers are complete on their face, the Secretary must qualify the candidate. Any challenge to the qualifications of a U.S. Presidential candidate should be made in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Gary J. Holland, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of State
As Dr. Edwin Vieira pointed out in my conversation with him yesterday, an individual applying for a hunting license in Virginia must provide a real birth certificate, but an applicant for president of these united States of America doesn’t have to prove citizenship? Excellent point and it appears the states of the Union are willing to allow the DNC to defraud their citizens the right to vote for a legally eligible candidate because they fear riots by a certain race of voters.
The idiom, possession is nine tenths of the law, is EXACTLY what Obama is gambling on right now. If he can stall until November 4th when vote fraud will “elect him” if he’s the choice of the shadow government, Obama figures he’s home free. No doubt Obama is feeling empowered from the extreme bias by corporate media with one newspaper in New Mexico already declaring him the “winner.” In his bloated arrogance, Obama believes that if he’s “declared” the winner, he can just waltz into the Oval office because law enforcement, public officials and federal judges are scared black Americans will burn cities to the ground. In my opinion, they do an injustice to Americans of color. No doubt there are areas in some major cities which have the potential to go off the track, but not everyone of a certain race believes riots are the way to resolve an issue.
Obama’s gamble is that since this big hoax called an election is already underway with early voting, if he “wins” and is sworn into office, possession is nine tenths of the law and the hell with the Constitution. He’s now a step closer. One of the nine lawsuits filed at the state level has now been thrown out:
Judge tosses lawsuit over Obama citizenship
SEATTLE — “A King County judge said Monday that a lawsuit challenging Sen. Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president “may be a positive idea,” but threw it out because the law clearly prevents the secretary of state from getting involved.
“Washington’s Secretary of State Sam Reed does not have the authority to inquire into Obama’s birth certificate and determine if it is valid or not, said Superior Court Judge John Erlick. Therefore, Reed is obliged to accept the nomination and keep Obama’s name on the state ballot, Erlick said. Doing any external fact-finding “is not authorized by the state constitution or state law or administrative rule,” he said. “The 2008 general election is already in progress; ballots have been issued and a substantial number of voters have voted,” said the order signed by Erlick.”
Obama was in Hawaii from the afternoon of October 23rd to the morning of October 25th, ostensibly to visit his ailing grandmother. Hawaii is also the state Obama claims is his birthplace. In June, Obama released a copy of a birth certificate which was printed off a laser printer. It carries no state seal and cannot be verified.
While Obama was in Hawaii last week, he could have simply gone down to the Hawaii Department of Health on Friday, October 24th, requested a copy of the state sealed birth certificate, gone outside where the world’s media would be waiting since they follow him everywhere and presented the birth certificate for the world to see. Over, done, finished.
Instead, Obama flies back to the mainland leaving the issue unresolved. WND reports they were told by government authorities in Kenya that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4, 2008. What’s the big secret? Perhaps to black mail Obama down the road should he succeed in getting sworn in would be my guess. After all, Obama has a very cozy relationship with Odinga.
No sooner did Obama’s plane lift off the ground to return stateside, Hawaii “Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate’s birth certificate under seal and instructed the state’s Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.” The State of Hawaii says a birth certificate can be requested by the individual, authorized family members, authorized legal representative or by a court of law; see here.
When Phil Berg filed his lawsuit over two months ago, Obama could very easily have requested and obtained a ‘vault certificate’. That would have ended all this speculation and lawsuits to get to the truth. Instead, his high paid lawyers, along with defendants DNC and FEC, fought to get Phil’s lawsuit thrown out of court.
Obama’s campaign has been the most corrupt of my lifetime, surpassing even the Clinton duo. According to an investigation done by Kenneth R. Timmerman (see here): “More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won’t disclose.” I predict once investigations are underway by the FBI, we will see just how much money came in from unlawful sources - especially foreign donors. Obama doesn’t care at this point, he only need make it to coronation day and pay FEC fines later. After all, it’s not his money.
This brings me around to the issue of possible crimes being committed by both Gov. Lingle and Obama. If Gov. Lingle has seen a birth certificate or has been told by an official at the Hawaii Department of Health that “a” document will prove Obama does not meet eligibility requirements under Art. II, Sec.1 of the U.S. Constitution and she remains silent, is she guilty of defrauding the American people? She is the chief law enforcement officer for the State of Hawaii. If Gov. Lingle knows Obama is committing fraud by presenting himself as a natural born U.S. Citizen, isn’t she obligated under the law to expose such fraud?
I consulted with a friend who is a constitutional attorney with 30 years experience in federal court rooms about this very issue. If Obama has knowingly withheld his legal citizenship status in order to run for the presidency and has collected nearly a half billion dollars by perpetrating fraud, can he be charged and indicted? Obama’s campaign released digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to kill any more inquiries into his citizenship. The ‘image’ is not proof and Obama knows it and so does his high paid legal representatives. During this period and as I write this column, Obama continues to solicit money. This is my friend’s expert legal analysis:
“In the late 70s and early 80s, federal prosecutors often sought to indict and convict corrupt state officials by contending that such officials engaged in a “scheme to defraud” the citizens of a particular state of those public servants’ honest services. But in 1987, the Supreme Court held in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), that the mail and wire fraud statutes could not be stretched to encompass such a legal theory. In response, Congress adopted 18 U.S.C. §1346 to cure this defect in statutory language. Lots of corrupt local officials have been indicted and convicted for using the mails and wires to carry out a “scheme to defraud” the public via their “dishonest services.” See, as an example, United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999).
“A great controversy now exists regarding the constitutional qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham, to become President. The Constitution requires that any candidate for the office of President must be a natural born citizen. Yet, there is abundant evidence that this candidate is not natural born and thus is unqualified for that office. To address this specific problem, the Obama campaign has posted on its web site an alleged certified copy of his birth certificate (certificate of live birth?), thus clearly via use of interstate wires informing the American public that Obama does indeed possess the qualifications for President. It cannot be denied that this statement constitutes a loud proclamation and representation that Obama is qualified, and this representation undoubtedly plays a substantial role in raising funds for Obama. It is reported that just in September alone, Obama raised some 150 million dollars from the American public.
“The wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1343, provides as follows:
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.”
As Dr. Edwin Vieira wrote in his legal analysis, October 29, 2008:
“Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.
“Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.”
I urge you to read Edwin’s full column because he shreds Judge Surrick’s absurd decision.
Lawsuit update (Hawaii), October 28, 2008: Andy Martin, J. D. and Professor of Law (Adj.):
Dear Judge Ayabe and Hon. Mark Bennett, Attorney General: “I spoke with the court’s judicial assistant on Monday, and today I am FedExing the original Order to Show Cause back to the court so I can obtain a new date. The court has indicated it will not hear me by phone on November 7th, so I must purchase airline tickets and clear several days to make a personal trip to Honolulu. That is a complicated process, particularly given the approaching holiday season. If I am assigned a new hearing date on October 29th (Wednesday), I can arrange to appear in person at a hearing in Honolulu on November 11th-14th (later in the week, Thursday or Friday, is better for me). I am also available November 18-21.”
As you can see, this is well after the massive vote fraud “election” coming up in a few short days.
I spoke briefly with Phil Berg yesterday. He and his colleague did not file their Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court due to time constraints, but will file today. He also mentioned some actions post Nov. 4th, but until we see the “declared” outcome I don’t feel I should comment on that right now. Phil also reinforced that there is no doubt in his mind that there is no birth certificate which will prove Obama’s citizenship and the Governor of Hawaii should be more careful with her choice of words.
While I wanted to send a fax, the FBI operators wouldn’t give me a number, so I sent a letter, along with Edwin’s column (printer friendly) to James Burrus, Chief Investigator of Election Fraud, Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20535-0001. Because time is of the essence, I sent it over night mail; it should arrive in Burrus’ hands by Monday. My letter was short and to the point: Barack Obama refuses to provide proof of citizenship, which he could have done in less than an hour when he was in Hawaii last week. This issue is building into a constitutional crisis and if no one else will investigate, then the FBI has a duty to determine if Obama is committing federal crimes as outlined above. If enough pressure is brought to bear on the FBI, let them issue a subpoena for whatever documents are being held by the Hawaii Department of Health and then let’s see what Obama has to say.
Take note: Obama’s “colb” state’s “Date Filed” by
Registra.
Other Hawaii “colb” state “Date Accepted” ????
In addition, the only time I see reference to “sealed record’s” usually concern ADOPTION.
§338-20.5 Adoption; foreign born persons. (a) The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii, when it receives the following:
(1) A properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department; and
(2) A copy of any investigatory report and recommendation which may have been prepared by the director of social services; and
(3) A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following:
(A) Date of assumption of custody;
(B) Sex;
(C) Color or race;
(D) Approximate age of child;
(E) Name and address of the person or persons adopting said child;
(F) Name given to child by adoptive parent or parents;
(G) True or probable country of birth.
The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth; and
(4) A request that a new certificate of birth be established.
(b) After preparation of the new certificate of birth in the new name of the adopted person, the department of health shall seal and file the certified copy of the adoptive decree, the investigatory report and recommendation of the director of human services if any, the report constituting the original certificate of birth, and the request for a new certificate of birth. The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents. [L 1979, c 203, §3; am L 1990, c 338, §3]
Read or Glance at many of the Laws on Hawaii Statutes:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
or complete list of laws
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov Dan, NY
No one is going to help us but ourselves. That is why I am part of the http://www.americangrandjury.org and I have the paper work here to file on this coming week for an Indictment of Treason and Fraud and Eligibility on the PA court. We hve many presentments across the nation and one way or the other we will be heard
IN MY HUMBLE UNKOWN OF LEGALESE THINGS, I AM A REAL STUPID ABOUT THESE THINGS, BUT I DO THING THE ONLY WAY IS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS BAND TOGETHER AND DEMAND PROOF. THEY HAVE TO VET HIS SUPREME COURT PICK, WHY HAVN’T THEY VETTED HIM. MCCAIN HAD TO PROVE HIS CITIZENSHIP, WHY NOT THE ARAB-AMERICAN PERSON. IF HE SPEAKS ON 6-4- AS I THINK HE MIGHT, IT MIGHT HELP, BUT SO FRUSTRATING FOR ALL YOU WHO ARE TRYING, TRYING DAILY. GOD BLESS ALL
Only by applying pressure can a wound be stopped
Sorry, I left out: There is no record of Marriage or Divorce between Barack Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham.
please see (b) sealed & case notes
§338-21 Children born to parents not married to each other. (a) All children born to parents not married to each other, irrespective of the marriage of either natural parent to another, (1) on the marriage of the natural parents with each other, (2) on the voluntary, written acknowledgements of paternity under oath signed by the natural father and the natural mother, or (3) on establishment of the parent and child relationship under chapter 584, are entitled to the same rights as those born to parents married to each other and shall take the name so stipulated by their parents or, if the parents do not agree on the name, shall take the name specified by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the name that is in the best interests of the child. The original certificate of birth shall contain the name so stipulated. The child or children or the parents thereof may petition the department of health to issue a new original certificate of birth, and not a duplicate of the original certificate that has been amended, altered, or modified, in the new name of the child, and the department shall issue the new original certificate of birth. As used in this section “name” includes the first name, middle name, or last name.
(b) The evidence upon which the new original certificate is made, and the superseded original certificate shall be SEALED and filed and may be opened only upon order of a court of record.
(c) If the child’s natural parents marry each other and desire to change the child’s name, the child’s name may be changed and a new original certificate of birth prepared.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the power of the courts to order the department to prepare new certificates of birth under section 584-23. [L 1949, c 327, §25; RL 1955, §57-24; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 6, §2; HRS §338-21; am L 1975, c 66, §2(4); am L 1980, c 153, §5; am L 1983, c 65, §2; am L 1986, c 287, §1; am L 1987, c 100, §2; am L 1988, c 141, §27; am L 1993, c 131, §3]
Attorney General Opinions
Department of health’s preparation of a new birth certificate pursuant to paternity orders. Att. Gen. Op. 87-6.
Case Notes
Legitimacy or illegitimacy fixed at birth and cannot be changed by subsequent legislation. 3 H. 459; 4 H. 548. Prior to amendment of Act 71, L 1907, children of adulterous intercourse not legitimated by subsequent marriage of parents. 4 H. 292; 17 H. 45, 415, aff’d 210 U.S. 149. Legitimation by subsequent marriage. 29 H. 258, aff’d 16 F.2d 273.
Child begotten and born out of wedlock even though legitimated by statute on marriage of parents, is not “lawfully begotten child” within meaning of will. 14 H. 271.
Presumption of legitimacy is not conclusive, but rebuttable. 30 H. 574. Evidence to rebut presumption. 49 H. 273, 414 P.2d 925.
Effect of legitimation on necessity of father’s consent to adoption of child. 52 H. 395, 477 P.2d 780.
It is quite obvious that Obama has been to the Dept.
of Health to obtain record’s. Dan, NY
Another “Sorry” for not including other Hawaii Statute’s.
I am still trying to find “All” that might be useful:
please click “previous” or “next” when reading:
§584-3.5 Expedited process of paternity. (a) To expedite the establishment of paternity, each public and private birthing hospital or center and the department of health shall provide unwed parents the opportunity to voluntarily acknowledge the paternity of a child during the period immediately prior to or following the child’s birth. The voluntary acknowledgment of paternity shall be in writing and shall consist of a single form signed under oath by both the natural mother and the natural father and signed by a witness. The voluntary acknowledgment of paternity form shall include the social security number of each parent. Prior to the signing of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity form, designated staff members of such facilities shall provide to both the mother and the alleged father, if he is present at the facility:
(1) Written materials regarding paternity establishment;
(2) Forms necessary to voluntarily acknowledge paternity; and
(3) Oral, video, or audio, and written descriptions of the alternatives to, the legal consequences of, and the rights and responsibilities of acknowledging paternity, including, if one parent is a minor, any right afforded due to minority status.
The completed voluntary acknowledgment forms shall clearly identify the name and position of the staff member who provides information to the parents regarding paternity establishment. The provision by designated staff members of the facility of the information required by this section shall not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Each facility shall send to the department of health the original acknowledgment of paternity containing the social security numbers, if available, of both parents, with the information required by the department of health so that the birth certificate issued includes the name of the legal father of the child, which shall be promptly recorded by the department of health.
(b) The child support enforcement agency shall:
(1) Provide to any person or facility the necessary:
(A) Materials and forms and a written description of the rights and responsibilities related to voluntary acknowledgment of paternity; and
(B) Training, guidance, and written instructions regarding voluntary acknowledgment of paternity;
(2) Annually assess each facility’s paternity establishment program; and
(3) Determine if a voluntary acknowledgment has been filed with the department of health whenever it receives an application for paternity establishment services.
(c) Notwithstanding sections 338-17.7 and 338-18(b), the department of health shall disclose to the child support enforcement agency, upon request, all voluntary acknowledgment of paternity forms on file with the department of health.
(d) As used in this section:
“Agency” means the child support enforcement agency.
“Birthing center” means any facility outside a hospital that provides maternity services.
“Birthing hospital” means any hospital with licensed obstetric-care units, any hospital licensed to provide obstetric services, or any licensed birthing center associated with a hospital.
“Facility” means a birthing hospital or a birthing center.
(e) The signed voluntary acknowledgment of paternity shall constitute a legal finding of paternity, subject to the right of any signatory to rescind the acknowledgment:
(1) Within sixty days of signature; or
(2) Before the date of an administrative or judicial proceeding relating to the child, including a proceeding to establish a support order to which the signatory is a party,
whichever is sooner.
(f) Following the sixty-day period referred to in subsection (e), a signed voluntary acknowledgment of paternity may be challenged in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, with the burden of proof upon the challenger. The legal responsibilities of any signatory arising from the acknowledgment, including child support obligations, shall not be suspended during the challenge, except for good cause shown.
(g) The courts and office of child support hearings of this State shall give full faith and credit to affidavits for the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity signed in any other state and these affidavits shall constitute legal findings of paternity subject to subsections (e) and (f).
(h) Judicial and administrative proceedings shall not be required or permitted to ratify an unchallenged acknowledgment of paternity. [L 1996, c 154, §1; am L 1997, c 293, §41; am L 1998, c 83, §10; am L 2001, c 95, §8]
Previous Vol12_Ch0501-0588 Next
I have tried to gather “ALL” statute’s & law’s concerning the birth issue of Obama/?.
Many are unavailable by mean’s of the internet,????
Please “comment” to Phil if you know of any and can post the source. Our Constitution must be protected, not abolished.
Thank’s, Dan,NY
You guys lost.
Your only chance was in January 2009 at the Electors’ Confirmation Hearing by the joint session of Congress. You should have objected. Cheney did not even asked the constitutionally required question (Is there any objection?).
That was your only chance. McCain was history at that point. The GOP would have lost nothing and possibly gain a lot. A perfect political opportunity. You guys blew it. You did not object. That would have been the only way to force SCOTUS to rule on merit. Basically the GOP sided with us democrats to put us in charge. Thank you GOP.
We now control the media, not only through the reporters and editors but through the owners as well. The Constitution is a living document, not a frozen outdated piece of paper, and with the new Supreme Court appointment we will be even more in charge to make sure that some ridiculous parts of it become unenforceable.
Some predictions:
Rush, Hennity and colleagues are already silenced through the owners of their radio station and they will continued to be silenced as they deserve for using their hateful language.
We will be dominating SCOTUS, so none your lawsuits will be heard on merit, because you will never get the minimum 4 votes necessary. All of them will be thrown out based on the Standing Doctrine.
The GOP will be non-existent in a few years.
A third party will emerge and we Democrats will crush them.
Give up friends, and join us, promoting the wonderful change that is transforming our country.
Democrat21,
We have not lost we are just getting started. Dems and Repubs are gone this 2010 election.. We The People of the United States of America are going to take back America. Our Revolution has just begun.. They will be sorry they ever messed with us True Patriotic American’s. We Stand tall and shall not fall.. Our goal is simple KICK EVERYONE OUT OF OUR HOUSE IN 2010.. The will of the people shall prevail.. True Justice shall stand.. Soon as we get our Patriotic American’s in office the USURPER shall fall.. We shall see him tried and justice for all shall ring true. Let’s see what Barry will do then..
We will charge every last one who was involved with him as the CRIMINALS they are,, We will clean out our Justice system and replace them with true Patriotic Judges that stand for American Values.. Our Fore Fathers gave us this land and we will not give it up without a fight.. With God on our side we will raise up once more from the ashes that are bestowed on us now.. Praise The Lord Hallelujah Amen..
A True American Patriot
Lynn Dartez
Attn.: Lynn,
How are you going to do it? You have no practical means left at your disposal.
The main-stream media, conservative radio, GOP, Congress all silenced on this issue. Both low and high courts are on our side. They will not hear the cases on merit.
With the new Supreme Court nomination, any chance you may had is gone for good. Even if a lower (or state) court will rule on merit (very unlikely), on appeal to SCOTUS, it will be thrown out based on the Standing Doctrine (less than 4 votes in SCOTUS). Face it, you blew the great opportunity you had in January, as mentioned before.
We understand that you are trying to make a HUSSEINGATE out of it, as some of your friends call it, but you have no means to achieve it. Remember that the media was anti-president during Watergate.
Just tell us how you are going to do it? Not WHAT you would like to do, but the HOW?
Democrat 21 is a typical midless Marxist. You won’t control anything in your life before long. You will be a serf for the state. Wake up.