The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

Posts Tagged ‘Larry Klayman

BREAKING NEWS – Obama eligibility appeal in Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore’s court

with 16 comments


English: Great Seal of The State of Alabama

Many cases challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility have come and  gone, but now an appeal has been filed with a state Supreme Court led by a newly  elected chief justice who has expressed doubt about Obama’s qualification for  office.

Roy Moore was elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court last  November, a decade after he defied a federal order to remove a Ten Commandments  monument from the state Supreme Court building.

Now, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama  Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish are asking the state’s highest court to  force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the  state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

Get Judge  Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten  Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious  Freedom.”

Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the Washington, D.C.-watch dog Judicial  Watch and now head of Freedom  Watch, filed the appeal Tuesday with the Alabama Supreme Court, asking for  oral arguments.

“We are hopeful that Chief Justice Moore and the rest of the jurists on the  Alabama Supreme Court will follow the law,” Klayman told WND.

Klayman says he and his team “have great respect for Chief Justice Moore and  his integrity and legal acumen.”

“He is one courageous and brave man. There are few in this country.”

The case is an appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit Court.

In his brief, Klayman says “credible evidence and information from an  official source” was presented to Chapman before the election indicating Obama  might not have been qualified for Oval Office.

The complaint argues Chapman failed her constitutional duty as secretary of  state to verify the eligibility of candidates.

Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.

In an interview with WND in  2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove  his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment  orders.

Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born  citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.

Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions  under the Constitution, he has a duty.”

“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in  violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.

‘Affirmative duty’

Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems  from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions, to  protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”

As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of candidates  for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified for that  office has been elected.”

The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager  is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”

“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State  is the official to cause that to happen.”

McInnish is a member of the Madison County Republican Executive Committee and  also sits on the state Republican Executive Committee.

Citing the investigation of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold  Case Posse, Klayman says Chapman “gained knowledge from an official source that  there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying  qualification.”

The appeal brief notes McInnish visited the secretary of state’s office Feb.  2, 2012, and spoke with the deputy secretary of state, Emily Thompson, in  Chapman’s absence.

Thompson, the brief says, “represented that her office would not investigate  the legitimacy of any candidate, thus violating her duties under the U.S. and  Alabama Constitutions.”

As WND  reported, Arpaio and his team concluded that Obama’s long-form birth  certificate was a computer-generated forgery.

Klayman, in a previous brief, argued the secretary of state, “having the  power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them  if they are found to be ineligible.”

In his new appeal, Klayman points, as an example, to California Secretary of  State Debra Bowen’s rejection of Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary  ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires the  president to be at least 35.

In his conclusion, Klayman argues the fact that the election is over does not  make the case moot.

“It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of the  legitimacy of the de facto President, a question which lies at the very heart of  our American Constitutional Government, were left unresolved for want of the  simplest of documents, a birth certificate.”

If either a bona fide birth certificate is produced or an admission is made  that it does not exist, he writes, “this most important of legal questions will  have been answered, the purity of Alabama’s ballot maintained, and the anxiety  of Alabama citizens stilled.”

If the issue is not resolved, he said, citizens will be left with the  impression “that their government was dysfunctional and has ignored their real  concerns.

‘Certain documentation’

In an earlier step in the case one year ago, before a panel of Alabama  Supreme Court justices, one justice raised doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

The justices denied a  petition filed by McInnish seeking to require Obama submit an original birth  certificate before he could be placed on the state’s 2012 ballot.

Justice Tom Parker filed a  special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges  of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.

“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which,  if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary  presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein  Obama that have been made public.”

The “certain documentation” is the findings of Arpaio’s investigation.

“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction  over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explained. “The office of the  secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that  this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a  petition.”

Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court.

‘Obama violated the Constitution’

Moore told  WND in an interview after his election last November that the country must  return to a standard in which the rule of law prevails over politics.

He said Obama violated the Constitution when he bombed Libya, because the  Constitution stipulates only Congress shall declare war.

“No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power,” Moore said.

“The Constitution is the rule of law, and [my job is] to uphold the rule of  law.”

Government’s job, Moore said, is to secure and protect those rights.

“There is little regard for the Constitution in the courts today, even the  U.S. Supreme Court.”

 

Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible?

with 2 comments


Alabama Dares

Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible?

 

Over the past year, both before and since the elections, there have been a  number of court cases challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility.  Most  of the cases have been dismissed by judges for reasons that are not truly  legitimate, but many feel they were dismissed to avoid the political  ramifications.

 

Just last week I wrote  about a case that was filed in Florida, that not only challenged Obama’s  eligibility, but stated that he was a direct threat to the safety and security  of the United States.  That case has yet to be heard.

 

Yet another case filed in Alabama may present one of the best chances of  producing a ruling against Obama.  In this case, Hugh McInnish and others  have filed suit against Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman for failure to  properly verify the eligibility of Barack Obama.  The case points out that  the state constitution requires the Secretary of State to verify a candidate’s  eligibility and that Chapman failed to accurately verify Obama’s  eligibility.

 

The attorney handling this case is the same attorney handling the case in  Florida. Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and the Klayman Law Firm in  Washington, will hopefully be arguing this case before the Alabama State Supreme  Court. The reason the case is going to the state Supreme Court is that a  previous judge dismissed the case. In that case the state  argued:

 

“[An attorney general’s opinion] is not case precedent binding on this court… Nevertheless, it constitutes an admission by Alabama’s chief law enforcement  officer on behalf of the state that if the Secretary of State has knowledge  gained from an official source about a candidate’s eligibility then she ‘should  not’ certify the candidate.”

 

Klayman argues that this admission of the state justifies the actions taken  by his clients. They believe that there is sufficient evidence presented by the  Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department Cold Case Posse to indicate that the long  form birth certificate presented by the White House on behalf of Obama is in  fact a forgery and that its presentation to the people of the United States  constitutes fraud. Klayman  argues:

 

“Plaintiffs have shown, backed by sworn affidavits from an ‘official source,’ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and his investigator, Mike Zullo, that Barack H. Obama  is not a natural born citizen eligible to be president. … There is credible  evidence that Mr. Obama was not born within the United States and that his birth  certificate or other identifying documents are fraudulent.”

“The secretary of state, having the power to certify candidates, can surely  de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible. Mr.  Obama proceeded at his own risk. He defrauded the people of the state of Alabama  as well as the other voters in this country, and incredibly has served an entire  presidential term without once having to prove that he was indeed a natural born  citizen, despite all the evidence to the contrary.”

 

What raises hopes for the success of this case lies with the members of the  Alabama state Supreme Court. In an earlier hearing on the same argument the high  court denied the petition by McInnish to require that Obama produce an original  copy of his birth certificate. When Alabama’s High Court denied that earlier  petition Justice Tom Parker filed an unpublished concurrence in the case stating  that the charges of forgery were a legitimate concern.

 

In addition to Justice Parker, Klayman is counting on newly elected Chief  Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. Chief Justice Moore is a strong  advocate of constitutional law rather than ruling on the prevailing politics of  the time. When Moore won re-election to the state Supreme Court he vowed that he  will do his utmost to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as  the Constitution of the state of Alabama.

 

In speaking on constitutional law, Moore  said that humans will misbehave when they are not constrained by law and  that the Constitution was set up with the goal to restraining human excesses. He  went on to describe his view of constitutional law as:

 

“The whole basis of the Constitution is the restraint strength of human  power. The only way you can do that is acknowledged that morality and law does  come from God. No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints  of power. The members of the legislature don’t and neither does the Supreme  Court. The Constitution is the rule of law and my job is to uphold the rule of  law.”

 

Klayman is hoping that the skepticism of Justice Parker and the staunch stand  for constitutional law by Chief Justice Moore will be enough to prove their case  that Barack Hussein Obama has not provided the proper legal documentation to  prove that he meets the eligibility requirements for president of the United  States as set by the Constitution. This case above all others that I have seen  in the past year stands the best chance of winning.

 

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8491/will-alabama-supreme-court-rule-obama-ineligible/#ixzz2Ladaf75t

 

Written by The Obama Hustle

February 21, 2013 at 9:16 pm

Obama lawyer has warned against certifying Obama’s eligibility

with 3 comments


English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...

By Bob Unruh – WND

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a
wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated
Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all
fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially,
and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.

A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.

The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.

In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic.

“There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible, especially under the informed legal counsel provided by you (and your state counterparts), Mr. Bauer,” Klayman wrote.

“At the same time that you are receiving this legal analysis, each DNC Executive Committee member – as well as each state Democratic Party chair, secretary of state, and state attorney general – is receiving a certified letter advising them of the legal jeopardy in which they place themselves should they proceed – in light of the facts herein presented – to certify to state or national election officials that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States.”

Such verifications, if created, would be “perjurious,” Klayman said.

Arizona’s inquiry

The evidence he cites in the letter encompasses several issues, including the recent highly publicized exchange sparked by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who asked the state of Hawaii, where Obama says he was born, to verify the “natural born citizen” status of the likely Democratic nominee.

WND reported Bennett eventually “closed” his inquiry into the issue without getting any pertinent documentation.

Bennett formally inquired of Hawaii for verification of Obama’s birth records there, and when he received a statement from state officials announced his inquiry was closed.

“As to whether the president was born in Hawaii, personally I believe he was,” he said. “I actually think he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college.”

But he said all clearly was not above-board.

“I think he has spent $1.5 to $2 million through attorneys to have all the college records and all that stuff sealed,” Bennett said. “So if you’re spending money to seal something, that’s probably where the hanky panky was going on.”

Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio also has formal investigation going on into the issue of Obama’s eligibility, and preliminary results have confirmed that the image of a birth document posted online by the White House is not real.

Path to conclusion

Klayman’s path to the conclusion that no one really can know wasn’t complicated.

He noted that the Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka “failed” to provide verification to Bennett of Obama’s birth information.

“He did, however, verify that ‘the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.’

“Mr. Onaka undeniably failed to verify that the image posted at whitehouse.gov ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record…’”

But Klayman explained the state law requires Onaka to furnish “in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified.”

Klayman explained that leaves Onaka no option and “the only legal reason for Onaka to not verify those facts is if he can’t legally do so. Since he verified that those claims are on the record in the DOH files, the record itself must not have ‘probative value.’

“The only legal reason for not verifying that the posted long-form ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record in [the DOH] files’ is if it is not. There is no other plausible explanation,” Klayman said.

WND contacted Bauer’s firm, Perkins Coie, for a comment, but there was no response on the holiday today.

Altered

But Klayman said the only Hawaii statute allowing birth certificates “to be non-legally binding” is the law regarding “late” or “altered” certificates, which states, “The probative value of a ‘late’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”

“Unless and until Mr. Obama’s original birth record, on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii, is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body or official, it cannot legally be considered to have probative value. In other words … it cannot stand along without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official,” Klayman wrote.

Klayman’s conclusion is that “no one can state with any legal certainty that candidate Obama is even old enough to be president, much less that he meets the exclusively high bar of ‘natural-born citizen’ status, required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5.”

He noted at this point “No one can legally swear that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president; and because the DNC bylaws require the Democratic presidential candidate to be constitutionally eligible, there is also, therefore, no party official who can legally swear that Mr. Obama is the ‘legally qualified candidate’ of the Democratic Party, under its own bylaws.

Perjury

For a party official to do so “would be to perjure him or herself,” he wrote.

Klayman told Bauer that in 2008 the Hawaii Democratic Party “removed the standard language heretofore employed certifying the ‘constitutional eligibility’ of candidates Obama and Biden.”

“In other words, the state party most keenly aware of Mr. Obama’s existing records would not (and did not) certify their constitutional eligibility,” he said. However, at the same time, “then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, did certify their constitutional eligibility [to present] to election officials in Hawaii, while removing that same standard language [when it was] presented in at least some (if not all) of the remaining states.”

Klayman, whose high-profile legal career has included lawsuits against OPEC, Cuban interests, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, told WND the letter puts Democrats on notice that certifying Obama’s eligibility without having the actual knowledge opens them up to a liability for making false statements.

2008 documents

WND reported early in Obama’s term on the issue of the 2008 certifications.

A commentator at Canada Free Press first exposed the Democratic National Committee used two separate forms to affirm Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president and then said Democrats failed to certify their candidate’s eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.

“In most states,” Williams wrote, “it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false.”

He had released copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president, one that contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility and filed in Hawaii (where state law requires the specific language) and another omitting the language and filed in the remaining 49 states.

The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president, “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

One image of the certification for Barack Obama’s nomination, including the affirmation Obama and Joe Biden “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”

The second form obtained by Williams appears identical, but in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.

Justice Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship!

with 3 comments


CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

My comment and open letter to Justice Scalia — Dear Justice Scalia: If you don’t know enough about the history and original intent of the “natural born Citizen” legal term of art in our Constitution, click on your picture for a refresher course! Or were you just feigning ignorance when put on the spot by answering Attorney Larry Klayman’s question with a question? I suggest you re-read the preeminent legal treatise on natural law of the founding era, used by the founders and framers, The Law of Nations or Principle of Natural Law, Vol.1 Chapter 19, Section 212. Also the Federalist Papers and refresh your memory about the framers great concerns about foreign influence on a future president and their original intent to protect that office as much as possible from foreign influence and their assuring the public that they have taken precautions in the new Constitution to prevent that.
You may remember that back in November of 2008 I sent you and all the other members of the court a copy of the Federalist Papers and suggested you all re-read it over the Thanksgiving break. You may wish to re-read John Jay’s letter to George Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention, with Jay’s specific hint/suggestion to Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” be allowed to be President since he would be in command of our armies. John Jay wanted a strong check against foreign influence. Being simply born a Citizen as Hamilton suggested was not enough. They wanted a “natural born Citizen”. The adjective natural in that legal term means that this legal term of art comes from natural law. A citizen at birth created by the laws of nature, not the laws of men. A person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of that country. A person with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to only one country at birth. The convention adopted Jay’s suggestion. John Jay was an ardent user of Vattel’s Law of Nations and as you probably know became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Think hard.
I’m sure you remember reading that letter from Jay to Washington. Or if you wish, Attorney Apuzzo and I can come visit you and give you a short brief in private on the Who, What, When, Where, WHY, and How the “natural born Citizen” clause was put into Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause, of the U.S. Constitution . But really, somehow I think you already know all this but are quite nervous and afraid to face the question and answer with what you know the true answer is due to your fear of Obama and media criticism and Chicago style Saul Alinsky tactics and threats of dire consequences to silence the opposition. We the People know you and the rest of the court have been ducking the question. Justice Thomas, the only brave soul on the court, told us as much. You ducked the question and abrogated your responsibility to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. The truth will come out some day. It always does. You sir will be judged by God, We the People, and history. And the record you and the rest of the Roberts court have shown on this subject and matter will not be held in high esteem. Of that you can be certain.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

YouViewed/Editorial

News , Blues and Guns ... Not Necessarily In That Order

For What It's Worth

Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, etc.

Today's News 4 You

Just another WordPress.com site

Mississippi Coal

Kemper Lignite Coal Plant Connections to the United Nations' Projects

The Piratearian

Aye, It's good to be a Pirate!

Texas Tudors' Blog

Tudor and Frederick Ancestors

HWNSURF.INFO

Liberty News & Commentary

The Ohio Conservative

Conservative thought and opinion from the Midwest

theconservativehillbilly

Confronting stupid people with the cold hard conservative fist of truth

Hump Day Report

It's America...We Can Get Over The Hump!

My Very Own Point of View

bits and pieces of what runs through my mind

The Daley Gator

If You're Left, You Just Ain't Right

Socialism is not the Answer

Limited Government Is

2012: What's the 'real' truth?

To find out, I hold a finger in the breeze.

Sparkleplenty27's Campaign Coverage

Political News About the Campaign FACT BASED and Commentary

Old1wordpress's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Real News World Wide

News World Wide, Real News Worldwide, News World Wide, Verified News, Infowars.com, realnewsworldwide.com, world news, headline news, best news

%d bloggers like this: