See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Alan Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case
Source:
obamawaffles.typepad.com
URL Source: http://obamawaffles.typepad.com/oba ... -in-obama-birth-gate-case.html
Published: Nov 14, 2008
Author: obamawaffles
Post Date: 2008-11-14 20:27:13 by randge
Keywords: Keyes, Obama, Birth certificate
Views: 3077
Comments: 120
November 14, 2008 Allen Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case You gotta love this . . . while Michelle Obama is dreaming of new patterns for the White House china collection and Barack Obama is busy redesigning the presidential seal, Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes—who is black and therefore cannot be dismissed as having a racist agenda—petitioned the Superior Court of California yesterday to require proof of Obama's birth certificate.
In his petition, Dr. Keyes points out that someone wanting to get a California drivers license must provide more proof of citizenship than Sen. Barack Obama has provided in his bid to be the next U.S. President:
Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS [Secretary of State], with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license.
Why should this matter? Keyes explains:
62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"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;"
63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a "natural born" citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen.
70. Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.
For a PDF download of Dr. Keyes eye-opening and well-written petition, click here.
Poster Comment:
The plaintiff as a candidate as well as his co-plaintiffs as candidates and candidate electors have standing. Maybe the MSM will get up off their duffs and take notice.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 107.
#21. To: randge (#0)
Obama has evidently satisfied all requirements to be on the ballot in California. Keyes cites no state law to which the California secretary of state has failed compliance. While Keyes asserts that, "[i]it was incumbent on the candidates to present the necessary documentation confirming his citizenship," it is entirely up to each state to establish laws and regulations establishing what the state officials may accept as adequate evidence of citizenship. The court is unlikely to require, based on the law, that the secretary do more than the law requires. In any case, if he desired or was required to supply acceptable proof, a COLB from Hawaii with a raised seal and signature would suffice. Proof that he was born in Hawaii after it was a state satisfies every requirement for natural born status. The COLB would be an official state record and must be accepted in the other 49 states pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Contrary to this claim, all of the treaties, laws, and executive orders signed by someone later shown to be ineligible for the office would remain valid. Once inaugurated, he could not be removed from office by any means other than impeachment. Andy Martin filed a Petition in the Hawaii Supreme Court which was denied on October 22, 2008. The Hawaii Supreme Court found that pursuant to state law they would not require any personal documentation about Obama to be released. Martin has another action started and has posted Obama court hearing to focus on actions of Hawai'i officials, need for disclosure Obama author Andy Martin heads for historic court hearing in Honolulu. Martin will arrive in Honolulu Friday evening to prepare for a historic court hearing in the Circuit Court Tuesday, November 18th at 10:30 A.M. "Some people want to run up the white flag and kiss Obama's fanny," Martin says. "In the words of John Paul Jones, 'I've just begin to fight.' Unless and until Obama releases records about his past—his birth certificate, college files and similar information—he lacks legitimacy. I do not think any American owes loyalty to Obama's radical socialist revolution, which is bent on destroying our way of life. Why will Barack Obama not release his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate?" There would seem to be no legal reason to justify ordering the state of Hawaii to produce anything other than a COLB such as that shown by Obama. About the only challenge might be that the state did not really issue it. There is no legal requirement that an individual produce the original of a state record. The original document is the property of the state and is exempt from the best evidence rule. A certified copy of the record, or of an entry within the record, meets federal approval. From the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 902. Self-authentication Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: (1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution. (2) Domestic public documents not under seal. A document purporting to bear the signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in paragraph (1) hereof, having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine. (3) Foreign public documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification. (4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. [...] The is from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 44. Proving an Official Record (a) Means of Proving. (1) Domestic Record. Each of the following evidences an official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States: (A) an official publication of the record; or (B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record — or by the officer's deputy — and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal: (i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or (ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept. The procedure set up to make challenges is as a political matter in the Federal legislature when the electoral college ballots are opened and counted. UNITED STATES CODE The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended): TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies [...] Counting electoral votes in congress § 15. Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
Oh really. Show me where he proved he was a citizen. I understand your sympathy for Obama not being born here yourself. But the constitution requires our president to be a natural born citizen. If Obama has a birth certificate he could very easily clear this up. My bet is that he is not natural born or at the least became a citizen of Indonesia. The upon turning 18 years of age he could have reclaimed his citizenship but he neglected to do that. I also think you voted for Obama. Come on admit it.
I also think you voted for Obama. Come on admit it. I think you completely missed the point of the post. All these law suits will come to naught and it is the wrong way to handle it. What it takes is someone from the House and a Senator from the same state to contest the Electoral College vote. It is the only Constitutional way.
Bullshit. "we the people" have standing per constitution. We shouldn't have to wait around for someone from house or senate to make a fuss. Show me in the constitution where it says that is the remedy. SOMEONE NOT BORN HERE IS NOT ELIGIBLE PERIOD. If he was born here then that is fine he can be president and I wish him well.
Among other things, standing has to do with the plaintiff's ability to show his particularized interest in the outcome of the litigation, as distinct from a large group of others similarly situated. Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) [excerpt] III. Analysis As previously mentioned, the defendants argue that Hollander lacks standing to maintain this lawsuit. “Article III of the Constitution limits the ‘judicial power’ of the United States to the resolution of ‘cases' and ‘controversies'.... As an incident to the elaboration of this bedrock requirement, [the Supreme] Court has always required that a litigant have ‘standing’ to challenge the action sought to be adjudicated in the lawsuit.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears a causal connection to the defendant's challenged conduct, and (3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The party bringing the claim-Hollander here-bears the burden to show his or her standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004). Based on these principles, the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130. These holdings include Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974), where the Court ruled that a group of citizens lacked standing to litigate the eligibility, under the Incompatibility Clause,FN5 of members of Congress to serve simultaneously in the military reserves.
So, the court opines that if one individual is screwed royally he has standing to sue, but when the entire country gets screwed no one has standing ??? Nonsense ! The opinion reeks. Of course I don't think the Constitution has anything to do with it !
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition "Standing to sue" means that party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636. Standing is a concept utilized to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court; it is the right to take the initial step that frames legal issues for ultimate adjudication by court or jury. State ex rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, Okl., 653 P.2d 1230, 1232. The requirement of "standing" is satisfied if it can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation. Guidry v. Roberts, La.App., 331 So.2d 44, 50. Standing is a jurisdictional issue which concerns power of federal courts to hear and decide cases and does not concern ultimate merits of substantive claims involved in the action. Weiner v. Bank of King of Prussia, D.C.Pa., 358 F.Supp. 684, 695. The doctrine emanates from the case or controversy requirement of the Constitution and from general principles of judicial administration, and seeks to insure that the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness. Campaign Clean Water, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus, D.C.Va., 361 F.Supp. 689, 692. Standing is a requirement that the plaintiffs have been injured or been threatened with injury by governmental action complained of, and focuses on the question of whether the litigant is the proper party to fight the lawsuit, not whether the issue itself is justiciable. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. v. U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., D.C.N.C, 431 F.Supp. 203, 218. Essence of standing is that no person is entitled to assail the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute except as he himself is adversely affected by it. Sandoval v. Ryan, Colo.App., 535 P.2nd 244, 247.
Devvy Kidd in her most recent commentary enumerates the continuing effort of many on different fronts to expose the truth on this birth certificate issue. See Update on the constitutional crisis: Obama can't prove he is a natural born citizen
Continuing efforts in court will be a waste of time. To prove Obama is a citizen only requires a showing that he was born in Hawaii. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii. Anyone wanting to invest $5 can submit that information to the authorities in Hawaii and get a letter of verification that the information is correct (or not) as on file. Letters of Verification Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request. Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies. The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter. Only the information provided is verified, but that is more than ample to prove natural born citizenship, or lack thereof. Anyone wanting additional personal information from some "vault" record will have to get it from the state of Hawaii. They have the original official record. Nobody else does. There is no other source to obtain it from. Andy Martin tried. He had standing there to try to obtain the information but the court found its release would be contrary to state law. Suits brought in state court against the state officials will be tossed, possibly for being untimely after election day. Berg certainly had no chance to obtain the documents in discovery as he attempted. You can only demand copies of documents actually in the possession of the person they are demanded from. What he asked for is in the possession of the state of Hawaii. A court cannot very well order Obama to produce documentation he does not have. A court will not demand that the state official now demand information that relevant state law did not require for ballot access in the first place. A federal suit brought by an individual will be dismissed for lack of standing. There is no federal official invested with any relevant oversight authority. If there is to be a challenge to demand documentation from Obama, it would appear that it will have to be in the Congress.
Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL. And why is the reference number blocked out?
Maybe you were thinking of the cert for John McCain. The one produced for him has no seal and was verified by a railroad company employee as coming from the files of the railroad company. It shows him being born in Colon, Panama which is not the base and is not the Canal Zone. Do seals and signatures count with McCain?
McCains parents were both American citizens. So his birtplace is of absolutely NO significance.
There are no replies to Comment # 107. End Trace Mode for Comment # 107.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a "natural born" citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen.
70. Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule902
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule44.htm
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#law
#22. To: nolu_chan (#21)
Obama has evidently satisfied all requirements to be on the ballot in California.
#29. To: Old Friend (#22)
Oh really. Show me where he proved he was a citizen. I understand your sympathy for Obama not being born here yourself. But the constitution requires our president to be a natural born citizen. If Obama has a birth certificate he could very easily clear this up. My bet is that he is not natural born or at the least became a citizen of Indonesia. The upon turning 18 years of age he could have reclaimed his citizenship but he neglected to do that.
#32. To: farmfriend (#29)
All these law suits will come to naught and it is the wrong way to handle it. What it takes is someone from the House and a Senator from the same state to contest the Electoral College vote. It is the only Constitutional way.
#70. To: Old Friend, farmfriend (#32)
Bullshit. "we the people" have standing per constitution.
forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1045201
#71. To: nolu_chan (#70)
(Edited)
the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
#75. To: noone222 (#71)
So, the court opines that if one individual is screwed royally he has standing to sue, but when the entire country gets screwed no one has standing ???
Standing to sue doctrine.
#78. To: nolu_chan (#75)
#91. To: christine (#78)
Devvy Kidd in her most recent commentary enumerates the continuing effort of many on different fronts to expose the truth on this birth certificate issue.
hawaii.gov/health/vital-r...ecords/vital_records.html
#92. To: nolu_chan (#91)
. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii.
#98. To: Old Friend (#92)
Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL.
#107. To: nolu_chan (#98)
Maybe you were thinking of the cert for John McCain.
Replies to Comment # 107.