Obama FL eligibility hearing June 18, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio affidavit, Voeltz v Obama Florida ballot challenge, Judge Terry Lewis, Natural born citizen ruling

Obama FL eligibility hearing June 18, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio affidavit, Voeltz v Obama Florida ballot challenge, Judge Terry Lewis, Natural born citizen ruling

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“I do not know where Barack Obama was born. I do know that he has used taxpayer dollars to keep his records hidden.”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From Sam Sewell of the Steady Drip June 12, 2012.

“Attorney Larry Klayman has announced that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has authorized an affidavit by the Cold Case Posse to support allegations of Obama document fraud cited in the Voeltz v Obama FL ballot challenge case. This should undercut previous defense arguments that previous witnesses were not credible, although their qualifications and experience should be more than sufficient to establish that Obama’s alleged proof of eligibility is fraudulent.

Consider that the Arpaio Posse and other evidence is of no use to us unless used in legal or legislative proceedings, so here we go!

A hearing is scheduled at 0900 on Monday, June 18 at Leon County Courthouse.

http://ConstitutionActionFund.org

is trying to raise money to cover the attorney fees and other expenses to keep this case going.

Special thanks to the Surprise AZ, Tea Party, for requesting and supporting the Posse, Sheriff Joe for making it happen and Chief Investigator Mike Zullo and his team, along with informants, for producing investigation RESULTS!”

Read more:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/06/flash-june-18-fl-ballot-challenge.html

From WND June 13, 2012.

“WATCH FLORIDA ELIGIBILITY HEARING LIVE
WND-TV to provide free live-stream from courtroom of Bush v. Gore judge”

“WND-TV will provide gavel-to-gavel, live video coverage of the latest challenge to Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility in a courtroom hearing that could deny him ballot access to this all-important electoral swing state in November.

Judge Terry Lewis, best known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute, will consider arguments from attorney Larry Klayman and attorneys for the Obama campaign. The hearing will focus on Obama’s claim to be a “natural born citizen,”” as required under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Lewis is credited with making crucial rulings in the contested 2000 presidential election, when ultimately a Florida vote recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court and George W. Bush was declared the winner.

Sign up now to get access to WND-TV’s special free, live-stream page prior to the hearing.

WND-TV has been designated by the court as the official pool TV service providing all other TV stations and networks with feeds.

Klayman’s law firm filed the challenge to Obama’s name on the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”

Klayman’s work is being supported by the Constitution Action Fund, a non-profit raising money for the legal challenge.

Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.

The definition of the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility since before his election in 2008.

The U.S. Constitution imposes a special citizenship status requirement on occupants of the Oval Office. The “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. From the writings of the Founders, its apparent aim was to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties – to the United States and any other nation – would serve as commander in chief.

Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.

Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.

“Obama’s briefs [said] it would be an undue burden and expense to have discovery,” Klayman said.

The judge said he wanted Obama’s representatives to cite the “authority” on which they based their argument that it isn’t necessary to have two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen.”

“The case explains that even if Barack Hussein Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because, “Barack Obama Sr. was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936. Birth in Kenya made Barack Obama Sr. a British subject, according to and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”

A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”

The argument also cites Barack Obama Sr.’s birth in Kenya, making him a “British subject.””

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/watch-florida-eligibility-hearing-live/

March 1, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio news conference, GA obama ballot challenge appeal, Natural Born Citizen ruling, Frawley sentencing, FDIC Mutual Bank lawsuit, Blagojevich appeal

March 1, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio news conference, GA obama ballot challenge appeal, Natural Born Citizen ruling, Frawley sentencing, FDIC Mutual Bank lawsuit, Blagojevich appeal

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”…Marbury vs Madison

Tomorrow, March 1, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio will reveal his findings about Obama’s records in a news conference.

From WND, World News Daily, Februar 29, 2012.

“MEDIA FINALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO ELIGIBILITY?
See which major networks plan on covering Cold Case Posse results”

“Poll after poll in recent months has revealed that Americans have a high level of concern over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, with one poll revealing fully half of the nation wants Congress to investigate the question.

But mostly reporters for the traditional media – networks, major newspapers, major news corporations and conglomerates – have giggled when talk turns to the serious question of just what – exactly – does the U.S. Constitution require of presidents.

But that’s changing, as media organizations from all political persuasions seek admittance to a news conference to be held by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz.

The event is tomorrow at 1 p.m. Mountain Standard Time in Phoenix, 3 p.m. Eastern, and will be live-streamed by WND.

The topic of discussion will be an investigation by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse into concerns about Obama’s eligibility, the first time an official law enforcement report has addressed many of the allegations about the presumptive 2012 Democratic nominee for president.

Those issues include his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution’s requirements, questions about his use of a Connecticut Social Security number, the image of his purported birth certificate from Hawaii and others.

In addition to the live-streaming, WND will make available to the public, the same day by email, the official report distributed to media by Arpaio’s investigators. Those interested in receiving the report can sign up for the free service.

Top national media organizations have indicated their plans to attend and bookings for radio and television reports are in the works. Expected are reporters from AP, Reuters, Univision, the Washington Times and NBC, CBS and ABC affiliates, as well statewide radio networks, among many others.

Because of the circumstances, the decision was made to hold the press conference at the sheriff’s training center, which is on the outskirts of Phoenix, rather than at a downtown office, according to reports.

It even has drawn the promise of protesters who object to the sheriff’s office review of allegations that Obama may be using – or attempt to use – a fraudulent document to have his name placed on the 2012 presidential election ballot in Arizona.

Without releasing any details, Arpaio has said the results “could be a shock.”

He constituted a special five-member law enforcement posse last year to investigate allegations brought by members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party that the Obama birth certificate released to the public by the White House on April 27 might be a forgery.

The posse is made up of three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys with law enforcement experience. Members have been examining evidence since September concerning Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which requires a president to be a natural-born citizen.

Among other issues, there also have been allegations of Obama’s use of a Social Security number that corresponds to a Connecticut address, even though the president apparently had no links there.

WND earlier reported a private investigation found that the Social Security number being used by Obama does not pass a check with E-Verify, the electronic system the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has created to verify whether or not someone is authorized to work legally in the country.

Arpaio’s investigation is the first official law enforcement look at the allegations surrounding Obama’s eligibility. Many of the private investigators who have examined it contend there are too many questionable circumstances to believe that everything regarding Obama is above-board.

Arpaio previously told WND that when he launched his Cold Case Posse it was with the possibility that he would clear Obama.

But he said it wasn’t an issue he could ignore, after 250 members of the tea party organization “came to me and asked their sheriff to investigate Obama and the birth certificate.””

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/media-finally-paying-attention-to-eligibility/

Regardless of what sheriff Arpaio reveals, Obama is ineligible to be on the ballot because of his Natural Born Citizen deficiency.

Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of Judge Malihi’s ruling in the GA Obama ballot challenge.

From Birther Report February 27, 2012.

“Obama’s Georgia Attorney Files Motion to Dismiss: Obama Being Harassed;
Ignores Natural Born Citizen Requirement”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/obamas-attorney-files-motion-to-dismiss.html

There are Obama ballot challenges in quite a few states and the PA challenges are now proceeding with the help of attorney Mario Apuzzo.

From CDR Charles Kerchner.

“Atty Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg NJ has filed documents to the Commonwealth Court of PA to join the Kerchner/Laudenslager v Obama PA Ballot Access Challenge Team as Co-Counsel along with Atty Karen L. Kiefer of Scottdale PA.

See this prior interview for some background and information about Atty Mario Apuzzo:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/06/post-emails-exclusive-interview-with.html

You can read Atty Apuzzo’s legal and scholarly writings on Article II Section 1, the presidential eligibility clause at these links: “

http://puzo1.blogspot.com  and http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/collections

WE NEED YOUR HELP:  If you can, please help the PA legal action to expose the usurper resident in our Oval Office.  Support the PA Ballot Challenge/Objection against Obama filed in PA. Please contribute:
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/Owri7yAp/Article-II-Legal-Defense-Fund/PA

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

Daniel Frawley, Tony Rezko’s old partner, is still awaiting sentencing.

From Illinois Pay to Play February 27, 2012.

“Daniel T. Frawley, a former business partner of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, claims he gave Rezko $400,000 that Rezko gave to then U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

This claim comes through Frawley’s emails to, and conversations with, Robert “Bob” Cooley, former Chicago mob lawyer turned government informer and author of the book on Chicago corruption entitled “When Corruption Was King”.

Cooley was the star witness in a series of trials in the early 1990’s as part of an F.B.I. investigation named Operation Gambat. Those trials led to the convictions of over a score of Chicago crooks, including First Ward Alderman Fred Roti, a made-man; the Chief Judge of Cook County’s Chancery Court; the Assistant Majority Leader of the Illinois State Senate; and the only Federal Judge in U.S. history convicted of fixing a murder trial.

About April 2011, Frawley, along with Daniel Mahru, a former business associate of Rezko dating back to 1989, and a former business partner of current White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett, began conversations with Cooley concerning collaboration on a book about Chicago corruption.

Frawley’s claim that the money he gave Rezko went to Obama is alluded to in a December 1, 2010 deposition executed in the context of a legal malpractice complaint filed by Frawley, on July 9, 2010, against his former attorney and long-time friend, George Weaver.”

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2012/02/27/former-rezko-partner-says-he-gave-tony-400k-for-obama/

You remember Mutual Bank? You know, the bank that loaned Rita Rezko the money to buy the lot she sold part of to the Obama’s. You know, the bank that fired whistleblower Kenneth J. Connor for questioning the appraisal of the lot.

The FDIC lawsuit against Mutual Bank is still active.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

 

FDIC as Receiver for Mutual Bank v. Mahajan, Case No: 1:11-cv-07590

 

http://fdiclawsuits.com/?id=16&opt=1

 

Oh, and don’t forget the Blagojevich appeal. Blago is looking at a long prison sentence. He has thrown Obama under the bus before. Perhaps he is a bit more flexible today.

 

And, a ruling on the definition of Natural Born Citizen by the US Supreme Court. We have our best chance by far of putting this before them. Obama has pissed off a number of the justices. Keep your fingers crossed. And of course, pray.

 

 

Obama GA ballot challenge administrative court January 26, 2012, Atlanta Georgia, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama motion to dismiss, Natural born citizen ruling

Obama GA ballot challenge administrative court January 26, 2012, Atlanta Georgia, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama motion to dismiss, Natural born citizen ruling

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

My hat is off once again to to Sharon Rondeau and the Post & Email for their efforts to report the news that counts.

From The Post & Email January 7, 2012.

“Atty. Van Irion Discusses Georgia Ballot Challenge and the Constitution”

“Constitutional attorney Van Irion, who is also founder of the Liberty Legal Foundation, spoke with The Post & Email regarding the ballot challenge he has filed on behalf of his client, David Welden, which claims that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president.
The interview was completed one day before Judge Michael Malihi denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski.
Welden had originally filed the challenge pro se and Irion later agreed to represent him. The hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 26, 2012 at the Justice Center Building located at 160 Pryor Street, Atlanta, in courtroom G40. Irion’s case is the first of three cases expected to be heard that day.

On January 3, 2012, Judge Michael Malihi affirmed that Georgia statute 21-2-5(s) gave registered voters standing to challenge the eligibility of a candidate for state or federal office. In response to the judge’s decision, Irion stated on his foundation website, “Hopefully the Georgia court will set the groundwork for victories across the country. If any court rules that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President, it will be a major victory and should make international news.“

Irion had also requested that his case be separated from those of Atty. Orly Taitz and Atty. J. Mark Hatfield, which the judge granted. Hatfield, also a Georgia state representative, is acting as counsel to two Georgia voters whose case has received television coverage.
We asked Irion what kind of action he has filed, and he responded: “I represent one person in an administrative action very specific to Georgia state law. We’re actually not going to a civil court. It’s an administrative court specifically set up by Georgia statute, and the entire purpose of the court is to advise the Secretary of State. I’m going to be starting by saying, ‘We recognize that your main purpose for being here is to be able to advise the Secretary of State on the facts and the law.’ Ultimately, regardless of what the court does, either side can appeal to a law court in Georgia, and that’s certainly what’s going to happen regardless of who wins.”

Irion continued:

Liberty Legal got involved after David Welden, who is our client, filed the challenge himself. Georgia law allows for any voter who is qualified to vote for a candidate to challenge the constitutional and statutory qualifications of that particular candidate. He and a handful of others did that. There’s a very short period of time: two weeks after the candidate qualifies with the Secretary of State. He did that, and after that, he contacted me. He based his complaint largely on Liberty Legal’s complaint in our Certification lawsuit in Arizona. He looked at our complaints and used a lot of the same language and citations. He didn’t ask us for our help right off the bat, and he didn’t expect our help, which was important to us, because he did it right, following Georgia code the way it needed to be done; and also, he came to us with a very gracious attitude of “I’m doing this because I think it’s the right thing to do. I don’t expect your help, but if you can, if you’d like to, I wouldn’t mind talking with you about this.” So we ended up having several conversations and at the end of the day, we said, “Hey, I think we can help you.” So that’s how we ended up representing David Welden.

David Welden and Liberty Legal are going first on the 26th. Atty. Orly Taitz will be there representing other plaintiffs, and there are other plaintiffs who may not have attorneys. I hope that we both win.

The reason we are going first and being heard separately is that I plan on calling one witness — my client, David Welden. I plan on asking him three questions; that’s it, we’re done, and making one argument. The presentation of evidence and testimony will take 15 minutes or less. We’ll probably argue the law for quite some time after that, but that’s the whole point. That’s the way I do law: I generally try to find the clearest, easiest-to-understand argument that I can support, and that’s what we present. If it doesn’t work, I rarely argue alternatives. Most lawyers do that habitually; there’s good reason for it; I understand why, but I also think it’s become very ineffective because courts have become numb to multiple alternative arguments.

The Post & Email asked, “What is your argument?”

Here it is: Barack Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, defined “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution as “being born in this country with both parents being U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born.” That’s “natural born Citizen;” that’s the Supreme Court’s definition; it’s never been overturned or challenged or questioned; therefore, Barack Obama is not qualified to be president by his own admission. Here’s the thing: the defense still has not addressed that substantive argument. They throw up all kinds of procedural arguments; they throw up all kinds of interpretations of Georgia code that don’t allow us to get to our argument. But at the end of the day, there’s one thing that’s very simple: Georgia code is very clear such that even if my client doesn’t have standing to raise this, even if no voter has standing, the Secretary of State, according to one specific code, “shall determine the qualifications of the candidate before the election.” It’s one sentence. It does not give them any option to not do it. And they can, at any time before the election, look into those qualifications. So if this court decides that David Welden doesn’t have the ability to raise this because of the procedural arguments brought up by the defendant, this court’s purpose is only to advise the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State absolutely has to address, by law, the substantive qualifications of this candidate. “So even if you find that you have to dismiss our case, you still have to tell the Secretary of State what to do with this argument wherein the Supreme Court has defined the term “natural born Citizen,” and Barack Obama has repeatedly admitted that he doesn’t meet those qualifications. You can’t avoid the substantive issue even if you rule against us on a procedural matter.”

“Is there a way that the judge could declare that having one citizen parent is enough to qualify a person as a ‘natural born Citizen?’”

Let me answer your question with a truism: a judge can do anything he wants. They are the final arbiters of what’s right and wrong. The fact that a higher court can overturn them is always there. It’s also true that that usually doesn’t happen. No matter how many levels of appeal you have, getting a higher court to overturn a lower court is always an unlikely outcome in any appeal. It’s difficult. They do it only when the lower court has made a glaring error or they philosophically completely disagree with the judge who happens to be sitting in the lower court.

The good news is that Judge Michael Malihi was the first judge anywhere to actually issue a subpoena to the Hawaii Department of Health to a) show up and be questioned, and b) have the original written birth certificate with you or a darn good explanation why you don’t, and the microfilm. This is a judge who understands that he has some authority here, and the court has the authority to force documents and witnesses to show up, and he’s doing it. Just that fact made me think, “We might actually get a fair hearing here.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/07/atty-van-irion-discusses-georgia-ballot-challenge-and-the-constitution/