Live... From Tallahassee.. It's the Obomba Eligibility Hearing!

[phideaux]

Everybody knows where I stand on this issue.

Yes, it is a dead horse, but it will not go away until it is settled.

In addition to the below, there is a criminal investigation for forgery and fraud underway in Arizona. IMHO and many others that the evidence is overwhelming that Obomba's long form birth certificate AND his Selective Service registration card are not only forgeries, but very amateur ones at that. (Not even mentioning his obviously stolen or forged Social Security registration. His number is reserved for a resident of Connecticut)

This particular court case has the best chance of success so far for a couole of reasons:

1) The judge has placed the burden on proof squarely on Obomba to prove that he is a natural-born citizen (not just a citizen) as required by the Constitution. i think all of the other cases so far have been from the other perspective, the challenger must prove that Obomba is ineligible.

2) With all respect and gratitude to Orly Taitz for pursing this mission for almost 4 years now, this case is being handled by a better lawyer, Larry Klayman. He has a lot of experience with high-profile cases.

3) This case is being brought by a democrat challenger.

WND-TV will provide exclusive, free live-stream video coverage of an evidentiary hearing to a 2012 ballot challenge for Barack Obama based on his constitutional eligibility Monday, June 18, at 9 a.m. Eastern.

Watch Florida eligibility hearing live

WND-TV to provide free live-stream from courtroom of Bush v. Gore judge
Published: 4 hours ago

TALLAHASSEE, Florida – 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.

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.

WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges across the nation. Specifically it alleges:

“On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.

“There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.”

The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s antecedents. The six-month-long investigation done by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery involved in the production of Obama’s birth certificate, and fraud in presenting that document as a genuine document.

The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support their claim.

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

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-flo...-hearing-live/

[Ebie]

They have been trying for 4 years now.
Why will this be different?

[phideaux]

They have been trying for 4 years now.
Why will this be different?

Did you read my post above?

This particular court case has the best chance of success so far for a couole of reasons:

1) The judge has placed the burden on proof squarely on Obomba to prove that he is a natural-born citizen (not just a citizen) as required by the Constitution. i think all of the other cases so far have been from the other perspective, the challenger must prove that Obomba is ineligible.

2) With all respect and gratitude to Orly Taitz for pursing this mission for almost 4 years now, this case is being handled by a better lawyer, Larry Klayman. He has a lot of experience with high-profile cases.

3) This case is being brought by a democrat challenger.

[TimoneX]

Thanks fido...hope it's different this time.

[GOLDZILLA]

Its too late now. They wont do anything. Imagine the riots that would occur.

[TimoneX]

Think of all the laws that would be...unsigned.

[phideaux]

Its too late now. They wont do anything. Imagine the riots that would occur.

That might be part of "The Plan", man.

[phideaux]

Finally, the Neo-cons are starting to pay attention to at least some of the fiction and fraud perpetrated by Obomba throughout his life.

Long article here.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/...an_646858.html

[Ebie]

Finally, the Neo-cons are starting to pay attention to at least some of the fiction and fraud perpetrated by Obomba throughout his life.

Long article here.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/...an_646858.html

Quote: "Barry Obama, as he then was known, published two poems in the campus literary magazine his sophomore"

I don't understand this article.
Was Barry Obama his legal name at Occidental?
What name did he sign on the poems?
When I looked up the poems, none of the articles mentioned what signature name was on the authorship line...

[phideaux]

Update from The Cold Case Posse.

[phideaux]

Quote: "Barry Obama, as he then was known, published two poems in the campus literary magazine his sophomore"

I don't understand this article.
Was Barry Obama his legal name at Occidental?
What name did he sign on the poems?
When I looked up the poems, none of the articles mentioned what signature name was on the authorship line...

Nobody knows. He won't tell a straight story.

According to his Indonesian school registration records and his mother's passport records (which at the time included the identities of minor children), when he lived there his full legal name was Barrack Hussein Soetoro Soebarkah.

Obomba later committed perjury on his Illinois Bar exam. He said "no" to the question "Have you ever gone by another name?".

And he lied to the world for 15+ years on his book bio where he said he was born in Kenya. He only changed it in 2007 when he started to run for president..

Not a single word out of his mouth can be automatically accepted at face value.

[phideaux]

Bump.

The hearing is now live on the internet.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/209789/

[phideaux]

WND EXCLUSIVE

Obama attorneys argue he's not Dem nominee

Urge Florida judge to ignore evidence challenging eligibility

Published: 29 mins ago

by Bob Unruh

Attorneys arguing on behalf of Barack Obama’s re-election plans today urged a Florida judge to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president – and ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.

The arguments were raised by attorney Mark Herron on behalf of Obama in a hearing before Judge Terry Lewis in Florida, who is best known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute.

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

The case was brought by attorney Larry Klayman, who 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.

Attorneys representing Obama argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, on which Obama’s name was the only Democrat nominee, does not make Obama the Democratic nominee for president yet.

The hearing was livestreamed by WND.

Herron said the Florida process affirms only that Obama is the choice in the state’s presidential preference primary of the state’s voters, but is not necessarily the party’s nominee for president.

The hearing will be available for viewing online through WND’s streaming procedures.

“This language clearly indicates the winner of the president preference primary, not the nominee of the party,” he said.

But the judge noted that the party submitted to the state secretary of state a letter indicating Obama was the only name recommended for the Democratic Party for president, and he thought the state’s electors were bound to vote for him.

“Wasn’t there a letter [that said] this is the only candidate whose name will appear?” he asked.

Obama’s attorneys said such a decision “has not been triggered yet.”
Klayman argued that applying the state law, when only one name is submitted, that person automatically becomes the nominee, even if the national Democratic nominating convention, scheduled for later in the summer, has not been held yet.

The hearing will be available for viewing online through WND’s streaming procedures.

No decision was announced immediately. The judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides. He asked Klayman about the presidential eligibility of a person who is born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizens, but the parents later emigrate to Israel.

Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.

And the judge asked whether the Democrat Party, as a private group, had a right to choose someone to nominate, even if that person was ineligible.
For Obama’s attorneys, the judge questioned their citations of a state law that suggests when only one person is nominated, that person becomes the nominee. He told them he would be evaluating the specifics of the law.

The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their desire to have the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet or officially the nominee.

Klayman accused them of running a “shell game” and simply trying to put off the issue, as numerous court cases did during the 2008 election, until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.

The judge called the hearing on the issue of Obama’s eligibility because as part of the challenge, Klayman cited a definition of “natural born citizen,” which the Constitution requires of presidents, from the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama’s attorneys, however, simply said that didn’t apply but offered no further citations.

Ultimately, the Florida judge’s decision could deny Obama access to the ballot in Florida, a critical swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that presidents be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the election level.

That’s an absolute requirement in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue

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.

<P.WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges across the nation. Specifically it alleges:
“On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.

“There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.”

The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s antecedents. The six-month-long investigation done by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery involved in the production of Obama’s birth certificate, and fraud in presenting that document as a genuine document.

The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support their claim.

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.”

When asked by the judge, Klayman also confirmed he could add to the complaint details about how there is suspicion that Obama was not born in the United States, either.

Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions – that the process is better handled by Congress. And they said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.

“They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the United States,” they said.

But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because of the importance of the decision and the pending need for the Florida’s election system to investigate Obama’s eligibility before a vote, because to come up with a conclusion after simply could negate the worth of Florida’s vote.

“Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.

He cited the significant, as evidenced by the Founders, for the president not to have divided loyalties, or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”

“Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”

Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition on “natural born citizen,” that is that it is a person born in the country of two citizen parents.

“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”

He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until such a time when the process would fail because there would not be enough time for the challenge, discovery, evidence and decisions that would be needed.

“It’s a shell game… Neither the Florida Constitution nor the federal Constitution … would ever sanction what they are saying.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/obama-att...t-dem-nominee/

[phideaux]

Full video of the hearing posted here:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...s-hearing.html