15 Nov

Alan Keyes Sues Obama To Produce Original, Full Length, Birth Certificate

                                       

You may recall the lawsuit alleging that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States due to the fact that he is not a natural born citizen. The big problem for that suit is standing.

Now we have a suit with plaintiff’s who have standing. (h/t Ace of Spades HQ)

keyeslawsuit.jpg

Alan Keyes, Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, Wiley S. Drake, V.P. candidate of the Independent Party and California elector, and Markham Robinson, California elector have filed this lawsuit to prevent California from certifying their electors until satisfactory proof is produced that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen:

Legal Basis

62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:

“No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a “natural born” citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a “natural born” citizen. There are other legal challenges before various state and federal courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship concerning Senator Obama. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.

64. SOS is responsible for ensuring the validity of the State election process by, among other things, verifying the qualifications of the voters, approving the ballots and the candidates, supervising the counting of the ballots, and certifying the results. This certification of the vote by SOS, based upon which Electors received the highest number of votes in the state, is the method provided for in California law for ascertaining which Electors are appointed to vote for president (California Elections Code §15505, 3 U.S.C. § 6). On December 1, or as soon as soon as the election results have been received from all counties in the state, SOS shall certify the names of the ascertained Electors to the Governor, and then transmit to each presidential Elector a certificate of election (California Elections Code § 15505). The Governor then issues and seals a Certificate of Ascertainment which is delivered to the Electors by December 15 (3 U.S.C. § 6), who then meet to sign the Certificate of Vote (Federal Election Code §192.006). The office of SOS is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and impartiality necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our elections.

65. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS, with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license. Since SOS has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America is received by her. This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

It’s very simple to solve this issue. Show the damn birth certificate and have it certified. It takes a few minutes and is not a invasion of privacy considering he is going to be the people’s President.

Other interesting parts in the lawsuit:

…From August 21, 2008, for over two months, Senator Obama has refused to provide his original birth certificate, even though, in his book, Dreams of My Father, page 26, he states, “… I found the article folded between my birth certificate and old immunization records…” which shows that he clearly has his birth certificate, or that he lied in his book. Particularly telling is the fact that not one single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to state that he or she was present during this birth, except for Obama’s paternal grandmother, who affirmed that she “was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.” Additionally, when Mr. Berg served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned above, Senator Obama refused to sign a consent form that would allow the hospitals to release any of his information. Instead, Senator Obama has hired three law firms to defend himself, and has challenged the action by Mr. Berg on a technicality, claiming that an ordinary citizen does not have standing to bring the suit.

And:

80. If he was born in Hawaii, there are four (4) other obstacles to Senator Obama’s eligibility. In and about 1967, Senator Obama moved to Indonesia, took the last name of his stepfather, Soetoro, and went by the name Barry Soetoro. In original legal action filed by Mr. Berg, he presented Senator Obama’s school registration, showing him registered as Barry Soetoro, Citizenship-Indonesian, Religion Islam, signed by L. Soetoro. From 1945, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship and, therefore, Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro, Senator Obama’s mother, had to relinquish her son’s U.S.citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him, which would make him ineligible to become a United States President. Additionally, the United States could not allow dual citizenship with Indonesia at that time, as Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and it was prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1930, as interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign Country.

81. In addition, upon return to the United States in and around 1971-1972, Senator Obama would have been required to go to the then current immigration procedures to regain his U.S. citizenship. There is no record of him ever doing that. Even if he had done so, he would be considered a naturalized citizen and not a “natural born” citizen.

82. Additionally, assuming Senator Obama was born in what is now Kenya, at the time of Senator Obama’s birth in 1961, (now) Kenya was the British Protectorate of Zanzibar and Senator Obama was automatically accorded a form of British citizenship under Section 32(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, effective date January 28, 1949, based on his father’s citizenship.

83. Finally, in 1981, Senator Obama traveled to Pakistan, when there was a ban for U.S. citizens to travel to Pakistan. The only logical possibility for him to do so was by using one of his other passports: Indonesian, Kenyan, or British.

Produce the original full length passport and the case is done…..quite easy. And the fact that he won’t is keeping this story alive.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, November 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
| 492 views

115 Responses to Alan Keyes Sues Obama To Produce Original, Full Length, Birth Certificate

  1. MataHarley says: 101

    Another pompous windbag who thinks he/she wears a robe and sits on the bench. Your disrespect for our system, as designed/visualized by the founders and written up in our Constitution by the framers, is breathtaking.

    So let’s set your pompous ass straight, and point out your very narrow focused arrogance, shall we? I more than understand the “facts” as you (actually Berg and Keyes) lay them out. I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes. Tho technically what you call “facts” are considered evidence and points of argument in the various lawsuit briefs. Only the judge… if they hear the case… will decide if they are “facts”.

    Personally, I think these points and evidence (including those that cannot be admitted) have validity and *should* be heard. So in principle, I agree with you. These lawsuits should be heard, and a determination made… or Obama produces the proper documents to put this to rest. And no, I don’t like that he spends more cash to halt these suits than cleaning up on the issue.

    But that’s not the point.

    Where I do *not* agree with you is your predetermination that the evidence is decided and inarguable. In our Constitution, the only way to resolve a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility is thru the courts. Also, in our judicial system, there is still supposed to be the semblence of innocence until proven guilty.

    You have abandoned both to jump on conspiracy bandwagon. And worse yet, you are waving a banner of “The Constitution!” in order to behave in the exact antithesis laid out by that same document for legal recourse. You shove this elementary argument in our faces, completely blind to your own disrespect to the two main principles in our nation’s system.

    So don’t be lecturing *me* about respect for the Constitution… when it is *you* who is not patient enough to allow the due process to run it’s course. And it is *you* who has decided the defendant is guilty before judicial judgment.

    So take your single focused BS arguments back to the Vieira, libertarian and extreme right wing forums who want to sit around to moan and groan about this daily and endlessly. Like I said, when the courts make a decision, I’ll speak my peace, and it just may surprise you as to what I have to say. Until then, you’re all just stroking each other’s pompous and ignorant fury… while telling yourselves you have “respect” for the Constitution and the separation of powers.

    Magnitude of ignorance, indeed. You and your impatient buds, subtly advocating rebellion, are the poster children for brainwashed ignorants, placing the quest above the process.

    Blow it out your ear. You are invisible to me on this forum, as quite a few of your bretheren and sisters have become when you slide over the deep edge.

    ReplyReply
  2. CTN says: 102

    MataHarley,

    Let me state it again, very succinctly, in a manner that you might be able to follow.

    THE STATE HAS NOT CHARGED ANYONE WITH A CRIME, THEREFORE THERE IS NO DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, CONTRA YOUR INSISTENCE, AND THEREFORE NO ONE ACCORDS ANYONE A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

    Once you get past this simple point, you may begin to understand that you are trying to make three arguments:

    First, you are arguing that the US Constitution grants all candidates for the office of POTUS the presumption of “natural born citizenship,” and that the US Constitution requires us to honor this presumption. Of course, this is absurd on its face and defies state and federal law. Moreover, you cannot substantiate your position, which probably accounts for your shrill name-calling.

    Second, you are arguing that a concession of fact is not a fact until the courts determine it’s a fact. For example, when Obama conceded dual citizenship (at best) on his website, you believe that his concession is not fact proper until the court affirms it. But what if the court never affirms it, which may likely be the case, does this mean he was never a citizen of Great Britain? Of course not. It simply means that the courts have refused to hear this case.

    Third, you are arguing that (due) process overrides free speech. Check that. You’re arguing that your flawed understanding of process entitles you to voice your opinion, but it proscribes those of us who disagree with you from voicing our opinion. As with the previous two arguments, however, you have grounded your argument in self-righteous fiction.

    Finally, let me note your incredible inconsistency, which leads me to believe that you are not only ignorant, but dishonest. Yesterday you wrote, “I have not heard it has been withdrawn, nor have I heard that it has come before a judge for a hearing yet, marbleblast. The latest news I see is from a Dec 8th, 2008 interview with Keyes by Essence magazine with Cynthia Gordy. He provides no status update on the lawsuit.”

    But today you insist, “I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes.”

    This is an example of a contradiction. Both statements cannot be true. Either December 8, 2008, is your cutoff and you are unaware of the status of the Keyes suit, or you have followed both cases through SCOTUS (not SCOUTS). And if you had followed either case, you would know that SCOTUS tossed both of them last month.

    Therefore, I am happy to end this exchange with you, because in addition to being completely ignorant and incompetent, you are demonstrably dishonest.

    ReplyReply
  3. CTN says: 103

    MataHarley,

    You can see another point of inconsistency on your part in comment #68, where you actually treated me with respect:

    http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/15/alan-keyes-sues-obama-to-produce-original-full-length-birth-certificate/#comment-132536

    I have not changed my position one bit since then; apparently, however, you have changed yours, which is your right. I don’t know how to account for your rabid tone, however, which leads me to believe that something else is going on here.

    ReplyReply
  4. THE STATE HAS NOT CHARGED ANYONE WITH A CRIME, THEREFORE THERE IS NO DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, CONTRA YOUR INSISTENCE, AND THEREFORE NO ONE ACCORDS ANYONE A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

    Now, that right there my friends is a stunning example of concentrated stupid.

    CTN, let me put it in very succinctly, in short sentences, a manner that even you might possibly be able to follow.

    The person who files a civil suit is the Plaintiff, or in this case, Petitioner.

    The person who has a civil suit filed against them is the Defendant.

    The Plaintiff, by bringing the case, is “charging” the Defendant.

    Of course there is a presumption of innocence for the Defendant, even in a civil suit.

    Otherwise, why is the burden of a “proponderance of evidence” placed on the Plaintiff in order to prevail?

    That’s right. Because the Defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    If things were as you claim them to be, then the Defendant would have that burden.

    Sorry, epic FAIL for you.

    You come trotting in here waving your claims around, scattering crumbs on the carpet, insulting the intelligence of your hosts when it is you, sir, who is clueless about the most basic premises and machinations of the US legal system.

    When you cannot even get the basics of presumption of innocence straight, then anyone with half the brains of a goose knows to use caution when it comes to the rest of your drivel.

    You’re a mental midget among giants here.

    At the moment you’re in grave danger of being squashed.

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 105

    Yo, bozo… From Justia.com, the E. PA district Federal Court docket filings site:

    Berg v Obama:

    Plaintiff: PHILIP J. BERG
    Defendant: BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

    This isn’t a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding. They have plaintiff (also called petitioners) and defendants (also called Respondents), and verdicts of guilty with judicial relief and compensation in civil proceedings as well. Doh…

    Don’t like the use of the word “defendant”? Suggest you contact docket sites like above and tell them how to do their job because it doesn’t suit your chosen language.

    “I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes.”

    I’ll take the criticism of this sentence not being well constructed, and a typo on SCOTUS. However I have had Berg’s site ObamaCrimes bookmarked since near the beginning, read his court briefs, followed his progress thru to present. Keyes has not gone anywhere in the system yet. Nor does Keyes provide any updates on the status on his website. Frankly, his case is far more interesting.

    SCOTUS did not address Keyes, but Berg. And it did not address the arguments of the case, but only reviewed… as SCOTUS can only do on his special appeal… Berg’s emergency request for a Stay of electoral count and temporary injunction until his writ of certorari could be resolved in the federal courts. That federal case was dismissed by the judge saying Berg did not have the proper standing. Berg also has three other cases going that I know of. He’s no where near done yet.

    Therefore SCOTUS did not toss out, nor hear any evidence and arguments that had anything to do with Obama’s birth. Therefore it is you who is “being completely ignorant and incompetent” and you who is “demonstrably dishonest”.

    First, you are arguing that the US Constitution grants all candidates for the office of POTUS the presumption of “natural born citizenship,” and that the US Constitution requires us to honor this presumption.

    I didn’t argue that at all. Apparently your comprehension of how legal recourse works, and how any issue (like the eligibility of a candidate) is resolved, is only slightly less than your ability to read.

    Second, you are arguing that a concession of fact is not a fact until the courts determine it’s a fact.

    Again, not what I argued. You read a brief with arguments and described evidence (without seeing or hearing that evidence). You decided it was “fact”. The DEFENDANTS named in the case have not presented counter arguments. Instead they have filed various motions for dismissal, who’s legal precedents obviously ran more viable with the judge than did the plaintiff’s. Now, as a citizen, you have the full right to determine that one legal side of an argument is wrong, and the other right. But you’re not the judge… yet you want to be the judge, the jury and the executioner. *That* is my argument.

    Third, you are arguing that (due) process overrides free speech.

    Again, that is not even close to what I am arguing. See above. You can say anything you like. I’m not forced to listen to it, nor do I have to agree. I’ll listen to what a judge has to say when it gets ahold of the Keyes lawsuit, that was only filed fall of last year. It is no where close to making it to the SCOTUS docket.

    I may not agree with a judge’s decision *not* to hear the case based on Berg’s standing. But I damn will respect our due process enough to encourage the appeal process all the way to the Supreme’s, and live with their decision. I didn’t like their Boumediene decision. In fact there’s a lot of SCOTUS opinions I think suck the big one. But I respect the process, and live with the results.

    Now, this is my last response to your BS. Frankly, it was libertarian long-winded, blow hards like you – the types who live by “the meaning of “is”… is” type debates – who made it quite pleasant for me to discard my Libertarian registration a long time ago. You’re boring, repetative, and a pompous, arrogant windbag. But there plenty of places other than FA who will welcome your 24/7 rant on this.

    Buh bye. Tata. and au revoir.

    ReplyReply
  6. MataHarley says: 106

    Sigh… breaking my own vow here. Dang.

    CTN… I liked you in the above posts because you were more rational, and didn’t make abject prounouncments such as:

    The tragedy of it all is that a man, who is demonstrably NOT a natural born citizen (his own website conceded that he was born a subject of the King of Britain), has hijacked our White House and is overtly pandering to radical Islam while he is overtly subverting our economy. Saul Alinsky is so happy he’s wetting his grave.

    You want to know why this makes me rabid? I’ll repeat it one more time.

    You have *no* idea how it riles me when you force me to defend Obama!

    You have taken the unproven statements by Berg and Keyes, accepted them as fact, ignored the defendants/respondents due process rights, and in one short paragraph taken them to the extreme.

    This extreme BS puts me in the position of having to stand on our Constitutional rights to legal recourse and defense against accusations of state or individuals in civil or criminal courts… and defend the bastard.

    Knock it off. I don’t even like the man in the WH. But I do like our system. However flawed.

    ReplyReply
  7. CTN says: 107

    I wish you two with your twenty hits a day the very best, and you, MataHarley, need to do something about your anger. No one needs to wait for process to know that there’s something very wrong with you, and that’s after we accord you the presumption of innocence.

    ReplyReply
  8. Missy says: 108

    @CTN:

    Now I have to say, shame, shame. Apparently you have given up refuting anything Mata or Aye attempted to explain to you so you resort to insults. Our legal system grinds slowly, until there is something we can get behind there is no sense in fighting with people that will eventually be on your side should the courts demand Obama produce the documents.

    We aren’t there yet, all the rabble rousing across the net won’t make things happen. Patience is a virtue, use it.

    ReplyReply
  9. MataHarley says: 109

    Missy girl… so admirable of you to come in with logic when none will be accepted by the recipient. LOL

    In the meantime, I’m quite sure our “22” hits – laughable considering this post is at 6415 times, and 67 so far today – will live just fine without CTN. The pity is that, prior to to lemming dive over the cliff, CTN had some value.

    ReplyReply
  10. Missy says: 110

    Wow! Been a long time since someone referred to me as a girl. Now you got me feeling like I should let down my hair down and don a mini.

    ReplyReply
  11. MataHarley says: 111

    And, ya know, Ms. Missy… in my visual of you, you will *always* look good in a mini because beauty comes from within…

    And oh, BTW, Italian men might think both of us look “good” in a mini. They do know how to appreciate the “aging wine”, so to speak.

    ReplyReply
  12. marbleblaster says: 112

    I have to say quite a few of those hits are mine- maybe 12… I’m subscribed to this post and I checked it out with every comment… Pretty interesting, but then again, I hate to see squabbles… :)

    Just kidding. That’s what makes this place so interesting. ;)

    ReplyReply
  13. MataHarley says: 113

    Consider this post is from Nov of 2008, I’m surprised it gets any hits, marble! Most stick to the current pages.

    ReplyReply
  14. Pingback: Law School Legends Administrative Law (Law School Legends Audio Series) | Test Prep Books

  15. Pingback: How many Blocker/OHH posts sound just like that Austin plane crash pilot? - Page 6 - PennJersey.info Forums

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>