Lawsuits filed in 8 states for Obama's birthcert.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by ichy_trigger

Kind of a crappy outcome since people are voting more for the president rather than the vice predident. Get your tinfoil out but are the dems backdooring Bidden into office?

Yea, but look to the bright side ... Uhh, nevermind

[ichy_trigger]

Originally Posted by AZXD

Yea, but look to the bright side ... Uhh, nevermind

Go ahead say it, you want momma Pelosi as VP?

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by ichy_trigger

Go ahead say it, you want momma Pelosi as VP?

Oh great, now I gotta rephrase and reuse my old quote of myself ... Voting for Obama (or hoping for Momma Pelosi as VP) is like putting a gun to your head and hoping they confiscate it, before you can pull the trigger.

[AZXD]

Well, I guess the State of Hawaii told one guy to politely go away ... http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/...8/29414ord.pdf

No evidence ... Just ... Go away!

[AZXD]

I found this over on Sean hannity's forums ... I was actually getting ready to write him and ask why he is not covering this. I guess he's to busy with the William Ayers angle

Obviously if his forum people are talking about this ... They've probably contacted him ... Maybe FOX is saying NO, then again, maybe it's a future show ... Who known!!

Why Indonesia Matters

A brief history (going back to the 1790 law) of who is a citizen may be found here: http://www.aca.ch/op4b.htm

I have actually been remembering the Nationality Act of 1940 CORRECTLY when I've said it was 5 years after the 16th birthday if the child was born abroad and one parent was not a citizen.

The passage in question as it applied without amendments was:

The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137.

Quote:
Section 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.

(h) The foregoing provisions of subsection (g) concerning retention of citizenship shall apply to a child born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934.
In 1952 a new law was accepted which is where the 5 years after age 14 had to be spent in the United States if the child was born abroad and one parent was not a citizen:

The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952
66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b)
(Section 301 of the Act)

Quote:
Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended.

Now, about Senator Obama LOOSING his status.

The applicable law is the 1952 act, section 349 (a), specifically:

Quote:
From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by — (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as a result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such a person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ....

Lets parse this bit of legalese.

First, it clearly states that citizenship is lost if naturalization in a foreign state is obtained through the action of a parent. This must assume that the person is a minor whose parents have the power to act on their behalf OR ELSE a person who is of age could be forced to loose their status by their parents (which would be patently absurd).

But what of the provision?

If "That nationality" refers to US citizenship the text is problematic since it contradicts the earlier statement that US nationality CAN be lost.

Clearly, "That nationality" refers to the foreign citizenship. If "That nationality" is lost by the parent becoming a naturalized US citizen then the earlier deed where the child is concerned is essentially undone (or so it would seem).

This means that if a child is naturalized into a foreign citizenship as a result of an action taken by their parent; but, the parent later returns to the United States and gains naturalized status THEN the child regains their citizenship UNLESS they fail to establish residency in the United States prior to their 25th birthday.

WHAT this means for Senator Obama is this: AS A MINOR he lost his citizenship IF HE WAS nationalized as an Indonesian citizen.

Indonesian law required the father to either adopt or recognize the boy for this to happen. This would constitute an action taken on his 'behalf' — this is not the boy loosing his US citizenship 'passively.'

So what happened when he returned to the United States?

IF his mother was naturalized as a US citizen (becoming a US citizen again) BEFORE he was 21 (and he established residence before he was 25) THEN it appears as if the deed was essentially undone.

However, if his mother did not undergo naturalization then it appears that NEITHER DID HE (or rather, the deed was not undone). This might be the case if she did not need to undergo naturalization herself (I don't know if she became an Indonesian citizen too) since it is possible that she did not loose her status in the first place (for an American woman marrying a foreign man, automatic naturalization to his nationality ended in the year 1921).

So here's the $64K Question.

What happens if...

A) he lost his citizenship because of the actions of his adopted father (in this case a duly authorized agent rather than a natural parent);

B) his mother either remained a US citizen or else was not later a naturalized US citizen?

Do you see the problem?

If his mother did not undergo the naturalization process then by the letter of the law the deed that caused Barack Obama to loose his nationality was not undone.

SO the question on the floor then becomes DID she become an Indonesian citizen or not, and, if so, did she take steps to regain her US citizenship prior to her son's 21st birthday?

[rpsmith]

Newsmax.com – Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit

Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit


Friday, October 24, 2008 4:16 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman


A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.

The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Berg's suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.

The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.

By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has “admitted” that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings.

Berg released a long list of “admissions” he submitted to Obama’s lawyers on Sept. 15, and asked that they produce documents relating to Obama’s place of birth and citizenship.

Instead of responding, lawyers for Obama and the DNC asked the court to dismiss the case. But Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued no ruling in the case that would have given Obama’s lawyers more time.

“There are lots of legal ways to stonewall,” a well-placed Republican attorney told Newsmax, who was not authorized to comment officially on the case. “But failing to respond is not one of them.”

“The first thing they teach you in law school,” he added, “is don’t put a complaint like this in a drawer. That’s how a nuisance case can become a problem.”

The 30-day deadline for defendants to comply with a discovery request is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
“It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side,” Berg said after he filed a motion on Thursday for summary judgment.

“The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. [Obama] admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”

In a contentious case, lawyers on both sides will haggle over the production of documents, and will frequently go beyond the deadlines, several lawyers told Newsmax.

“The rules are more often complied with in the breech rather than the observance,” a senior trial attorney who has close ties to the Democrat Party, but is not involved in the current case, told Newsmax.

“Lawyers frequently do not return telephone calls or meet discovery deadlines because of sheer inadvertence. Therefore, we do not consider a failure to respond as a ‘violation,’” he said.

Allegations surrounding Obama’s place of birth have been swirling for months. Earlier this year, the Obama campaign sought to put down the rumors by making available a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, issued in 2007 by the State of Hawaii. [See the Certification of Live Birth — Click Here.]

Respected conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called the Berg lawsuit a “conspiracy theory” that had been put to rest by the Obama campaign over the summer but ”has arisen like a zombie yet again to suck the credibility out of the conservative blogosphere.”

However, the 2007 document produced by the Obama campaign omits key information that normally appears on birth certificates in the United States, including the name of the hospital where he was born, the size and weight of the baby, and sometimes the name of the doctor who delivered him.

In addition, the critics of the 2007 document note that Obama's father is described as “African,” a term used today. The formal language in official documents at the time — 1961 — would have identified his race as “Negro” or “Colored.”

The Web site snarkybytes.com has produced a vault copy of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth from 1963, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. [See the vault copy — Click Here.]

In addition to naming the hospital and more details about the baby, the 1963 vault copy also includes the “usual residence of the mother,” and the “usual occupation” of the father. None of this information appears on the 2007 Live Birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign.

Berg has been a perennial political candidate in Pennsylvania, having run in Democrat primaries for attorney general, lieutenant governor, governor, and other offices without success. He served as deputy attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania from 1972-1980.

His credibility was tarnished by work he did for the far-left “9/11 for the Truth” campaign, which alleged in a federal lawsuit that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was caused by “controlled demolition” ordered by the president of the United States.

Nevertheless, in recent weeks, lawsuits have been filed in seven additional states demanding that Barack Obama produce an original vault copy of his birth certificate, to dispel the rumors that he is not a natural-born United States citizen.

The latest suits have been filed in state and federal courts in Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut to compel Obama to release his birth records.

Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state superior courts to force the states’ secretary of state, as the chief state elections officer, to require Obama to produce original birth records from Hawaii, or else decertify him as a candidate for the presidency.



Ironically, Obama mentions his birth certificate in passing on Page 26 of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father.” “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” he wrote.

Lawyers for Obama and the DNC did not return calls for comment on the current status of the case, or explain why the Obama campaign did not simply put to rest the whole controversy by releasing the birth certificate that Obama apparently cherished as a teenager.

In the past, questions about Sen. John McCain's legal status have arisen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone at a U.S. Army hospital. McCain had legal experts vet his constitutional qualifications, and he also disclosed a copy of his birth certificate.

[AZXD]

Can anyone verify the rumor my wife has told me about Obama ??

She said she read on her cooking board that a Judge in Hawaii has sealed Obama's medical records and that it occured while Obama was in Hawaii visiting his grandmother.

I can't verify the source, because they deleted the thread ... No politics allowed.

[Carnivorous]

Originally Posted by AZXD

I found this over on Sean hannity's forums ... I was actually getting ready to write him and ask why he is not covering this. I guess he's to busy with the William Ayers angle

Obviously if his forum people are talking about this ... They've probably contacted him ... Maybe FOX is saying NO, then again, maybe it's a future show ... Who known!!

Yeah, those people are reading the statute wrong.

The relevant part is: "Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as a result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such a person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday."

So it's not whether his mother re-entered the US, it's whether OBAMA re-entered the US and established permanent resident by the time he turned 25. He returned to Hawaii in 1971 when he was 5, and has lived here ever since. So, *even if* the adoption was effective to lose his citizenship, the fact that he returned before he turned 25 nullifies that loss.

[AwPhuch]

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

Yeah, those people are reading the statute wrong.

The relevant part is: "Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as a result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such a person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday."

So it's not whether his mother re-entered the US, it's whether OBAMA re-entered the US and established permanent resident by the time he turned 25. He returned to Hawaii in 1971 when he was 5, and has lived here ever since. So, *even if* the adoption was effective to lose his citizenship, the fact that he returned before he turned 25 nullifies that loss.

True..if he was actually born in Hawaii and not Kenya like his grandmother said he was, which means he never got his citizenship and is in fact an illegal alien