February 1, 2012
February 1, 2012. Atlanta. Last week, the state of Georgia heard arguments in a case challenging President Obama’s eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States. Citing the Constitutional clause requiring any US President to be a ‘natural born citizen’, attorneys for the petitioners argued that Barack Obama admittedly does not satisfy the definition of natural born and is not eligible to be President. Court challenges to the President’s eligibility have been filed in 5 other states as well.
The mysteriously modern-looking official Barack Obama birth certificate.
While the few media outlets reporting the story are insisting it is merely another crazy effort to expose the President’s birth certificate, legal experts are insisting it’s much more. Each in its own way challenges the President’s standing as a ‘natural born citizen’. The Georgia suit, as well as most of the other lawsuits, are citing the US Supreme Court ruling of Minor vs. Happersett from 1875.
The court ruled on the legal definition of a natural born citizen, as summed up by the attorneys in the Georgia case, “To be a natural born citizen, one must have two parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States.” As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, Constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
The challenging lawyers, including attorney Orly Taitz, also noted that no lower court had ever overturned or challenged that Supreme Court decision. The attorneys also reminded the court that President Obama’s father was born in Kenya, and according to the records introduced as evidence, was not a US citizen at the time of Barack Obama’s birth. Those records include documents obtained from the Dept of Immigration and Naturalization via a Freedom of Information Act request.
Radio Patriot reported on last week’s proceedings in detail and gave a summary of the various witnesses and evidence introduced.
In addition to the DNS records, evidence was submitted that attempted to indirectly incriminate the Democratic Party. Two items introduced were the certification documents for each party’s Presidential candidate in 2008. While the Republican Party’s certificate includes language that declares their nominee, John McCain, is eligible, the Democratic Party’s certificate for Barack Obama did not.
Another witness taking the stand was a state-certified private investigator hired to look into the Obama family historical documents. She testified that the biggest problem she uncovered was that, according to her testimony, Barack Obama was using a social security number in 1977 that was previously given to a different person in 1890. The next witness, an expert in graphic design, testified that the birth certificate the President released was a hodgepodge of layered graphic files and not an actual document.
The following witness went back to the President’s Social Security number. Putting the number through the government’s own E-Verify system, the result came back with a notation showing that the number was suspected as fraudulent. A following witness, a former police and immigration officer, ran the Social Security number through a separate database and found that the number was, according to testimony, issued to Barack Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut. The attorneys went on to remind the court that President Obama never lived in Connecticut and instead was residing in Hawaii at the time.
Going back to the President’s released birth certificate, the investigators reveal that it’s their determination that the serial number on Barack Obama’s birth certificate is out of sequence from others issued at that same hospital and different from certificates issued to a set of twins born 24 hours prior to President Obama at the same facility.
Attorneys closed their arguments by stating that the evidence shows that Barack Obama’s legal records have been altered and are hiding his true identity and citizenship. For that, they asked the court to rule the President ineligible to run for President in the state of Georgia.
President Obama a No-Show
Vowing not to give the accusations any credibility by participating in any of these legal actions, President Obama and his teams of attorneys were absent from the proceedings. Ignoring a court subpoena, the President himself was a no-show. After closing arguments, some legal experts on-hand refused to make any predictions, but suggested it wouldn’t be a surprise if the court ruled against the President simply because he refused to acknowledge the case or the subpoena.
It’s expected that the Judge will make his ruling sometime this week. If the court rules against President Obama, the verdict would then be sent to the Georgia Board of Elections and the Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Whether or not the ruling would be considered a court-ordered mandate or merely a request that the Secretary look into the matter, will be determined in the Judge’s final decision.
WND.com reports on the other state lawsuits challenging President Obama’s legal right to serve as US President. We’ve summarized them below. Some directly try to remove his name from the upcoming 2012 election ballot, while others simply petition the state to create a mechanism for actually checking the eligibility of a candidate’s legal status. Until now, most states must wait for a legal challenge to be made for a specific violation, such as fraudulent ballot petition signatures or legal residence outside the boundaries. A change in state guidelines and verification, if enacted quickly enough, would presumably catch President Obama in its net.
President Obama’s home state of Illinois isn’t immune. In the Circuit Court of Cook County, plaintiffs have filed suit to force the state of Illinois to change the way it verifies a candidate’s eligibility. One plaintiff is a longtime activist for ballot reform in Illinois. If victorious, the court would require a Judicial review of Illinois’ election procedures.
The suit specifically challenges and targets a number of local and state-wide elected officials. But President Obama isn’t one of them. Named in the suit are the state Board of Elections, its Board members, a number of County Clerks and a couple candidates. The main plaintiff, Sharon Maroni, insists her concern is that, “only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitution appear on the ballot.”
The petitioners argue that the candidates in question didn’t provide proof of their eligibility. They also criticize the election system in Illinois for basically allowing the two major parties to decide who gets their respective nominations without any oversight. Another petitioner in the Illinois case told WND, “The way the system is established in Illinois, it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office. And unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed. And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates.”
New Hampshire state officials quietly rejected requests that President Obama’s name be stricken from the Democratic Party ballot. Now, challengers have taken their fight to the New Hampshire courts. Instead of targeting the President however, many of the suits are challenging the Democratic Party’s nominating and verification of eligibility process.
One lawsuit states, “This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States. Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.”
In Arizona, Van Irion, lead attorney for the Liberty Legal Foundation, is representing a candidate for US President who is the petitioner in the case. John Dummett is a Liberty Legal Foundation member, as well as a candidate for US President. Irion explained, “We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit.”
Van Irion and the Liberty Legal Foundation are also involved in the lawsuit filed in Tennessee. From the lawyer’s brief description, it sounds like attorneys will attempt to expose the President’s entire background and introduce the same questionable legal documents brought forth in the Georgia trial.
Irion explained, “The focus of the state court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number.” A victory in this case, the attorney insisted, would prohibit the President’s name from appearing on the ballot in Tennessee.
A Jefferson County judge rejected a motion by an Alabama resident to have President Obama’s name removed from the Alabama ballot due to his alleged ineligibility. This isn’t the first time this judge has rejected similar challenges. In this case however, the judge ruled in favor of the Alabama Democratic Party in their request that the citizen who filed the challenge be forced to pay the Democratic Party’s legal fees. After the ruling, the Democratic Party state Chair announced that the party would wave the monetary settlement if the person refrained from filing any more similar challenges for the rest of the 2012 election season.
In reality, these court cases seem to border on frivolous, unless the evidence is legitimate and President Obama really isn’t eligible to serve as President. If that’s the case, America will have a major Constitutional crisis on its hands. If the President’s name is removed from the ballot in key, delegate-rich states like Illinois and a couple others, it could make his re-election practically impossible.
More than likely however, if a court does rule that the President is ineligible, the Secretary of State, an elected Democrat and Obama ally in the state of Illinois’ case, will simply ignore the court order. If other states jump on board and file similar challenges, they would need to do so prior to September when election ballots are printed. Otherwise, rulings in the challengers’ favor after President Obama’s re-election will be tied up in court for years.