Thursday, January 1, 2009
Barry Sorento aka Barack Obama
Stephen Pidgeon Attorney Files Lawsuit To Expose Obama As A Fraud
Listen To Interview With Stephen Pidgeon and Dr Mike Ritze State Congressman From Oklahoma
Hear Stephen Pidgeon answer questions about his case in Washington State exposing obama as a fraud
Washington’s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name. Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama.
The Secretary of State’s claim that “Barack Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing he was born on August 4, 1961” is patently false. Nothing in its original form has been produced publicly. The document provided by Obama says on the bottom border that “any alteration invalidates this certificate.” The copy is altered, its CERTIFICATE NUMBER having been blotted out with a dark, black line. The only document Sen. Obama has yet to produce to demonstrate his native birth in the United States is wholly deficient to do so.
The Secretary has a duty to determine eligibility. Article VI of the United States Constitution requires all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, to be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 the Washington State Constitution makes the Constitution of the United States the supreme law of the land. The Secretary of State is “the chief election officer for all federal, state, county, city, town and district elections.” RCW 29A.04.230, and he is “required by law” to . . . coordinate those state election activities with federal law. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution states that “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.”
Our position is not moot. Amendment 20, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, states that “if a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify [bold added], then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Because the court could order the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama in the State of Washington because the Senator never established his eligibility, the case is not moot.
We did not fail to join an indispensable party. Complete relief can be accorded among those already parties. Obama has never claimed an interest in this action. Obama has no interest in this action, because even if the Secretary of State were to set aside the votes cast for him, Obama would still prevail in the Presidential election. The outcome of Washington’s vote is irrelevant to Senator Obama.
We stated a claim in mandamus. The Secretary claims that we have the burden of establishing that Obama is not qualified to assume the office! We have proved that Obama did not establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States at the time of the election. He has not produced a single piece of credible evidence that he is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, and he has not produced any document showing a change of his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.
The Secretary is without any evidence upon which he can reasonably rely to shirk his constitutional duty. The Secretary of State has relied upon four pieces of “evidence” he believes to be sufficient to vitiate his constitutional duty to establish the eligibility of Senator Obama: 1) the Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee; 2) the digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth posted by FactCheck.org; 3) FacCheck.org’s certification that that the Certification was genuine; and 4) the statement by State of Hawaii, Department of Health Director Dr. Fukino.
The Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee says nothing more than that Senator Obama was “duly nominated.” There is no certification by the DNC that the candidate was eligible or constitutionally qualified to hold office.
FactCheck.org’s certification is meaningless, because the document they “certify” as genuine is deficient on its face as a matter of law. The digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth does not establish that Senator Obama was born in the United States, because of Hawaiian law HRS 338-17.8 which allows for people born in foreign countries to register their birth in Hawaii.
Finally, the statement by Dr. Fukino is that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with policies and procedures.” She does not tell us that the document they have is a Hawaiian birth certificate; only that there is a birth certificate on file in Hawaii.
Plaintiffs' Reply PDF Cause No, 8-2-473-8
Stephen Pidgeon and Dr. Mike Ritze on Plains Radio
Press Alerts about this case in Washington State
Summary Of Arguments In Broe v. Reed which seeks to expose obama as a fraud
OLK State Rep Mike Ritz
The Washington State Secretary of State is confused
My Comment on this matter:
Bill on January 1st, 2009 4:11 pm
After reading this information on Hawaiian State Dept Of Health I don’t see how a Hawaiian Certificate Of Birth can validate who “Obama” really is, where he was born or who his parents are. It is to easy to change the information. He could be adopted, had a sex change, switched parents if needed or switched his last name to anybody. Anything short of DNA will not prove who he is and even the DNA probably would not match if one could find the real parents. Obama could have been born anywhere in the world and if his parents were legally married in Hawaii and lived in Hawaii 1 year prior to his birth his COB would be legal under “Hawaiian” law.
More cliff hanger questions: Were his “parents” legally married in Hawaii?
Did his “parents” live in Hawaii at least 1 year prior to his birth?
If not his COB would not be a legal COB.
He also could have applied for an amended certificate of birth.
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, and payment of any fees.
For a person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii:
So my question is how can ANY person with a COB from Hawaii claim they are a US citizen? Where does it state in US law a person born in a foreign country can be legally adopted an become a US citizen?
I agree, with out knowing what the original COB from Hawaii indicates there can not be a legal answer to the questions, “Is Obama a US citizen or is Obama a natural born citizen”
Atty Stephen Pidgeon:
Suppose the US Constitution is effectively gutted in the first 100 days of the Obama Administration.
You simply come in and say international law is the precident and international law by treaty is going to be the governing law in the US.
The antique US Constitution which Obama thinks is racist at its beginning is not relevant to modern society and nobody wants it around here anyway is now going to be replaced by the universal declaration of human rights. This could happen by Congressional vote- by the adoption of a treaty in behalf of president obama. If this happens the US Constitution and its protection are gone.
The Berg case goes forward. Its is possible the Donofrio V. Wells case is not over also. The Stephen Pidgeon case is also yet to be heard in Washington State. All of these cases including the new Berg case are yet to be decided as of Jan 2, 2009
If at any time during which Obama is President he is found to not be a natural born citizen he can be removed from office. These cases will continue until hell freezes over.
It is possible Barry Sorento aka Barack Obama is at present a British citizen, a Kenyan citizen and and Indonesian citizen but not a US citizen. If this is true America has elected an illegal alien. I believe between Jan 8,2009 and Jan 19, 2009 the Supreme Court will hear a case to decide if Obama is a citizen or natural born citizen. If he is found to be a citizen and not a natural born citizen the Supreme court could rule in his favor or rule he cannot be president. The 1795 nationality Act is the law that should control the outcome of the courts decision according to Stephen Pidgeon because Barry's father was a Kenyan citizen at his birth if Barry was born in this country. If he was born in Kenya America has elected an alien under a false name. The DNC certified Obama but is a private company not subject to the freedom of information act unless they have crossed the line and are acting like a government agency. The DNC can also be sued in civil court if a law has been found to have been violated.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
The longer obama is in office, the greater the problem becomes, because everything he does will be illegal
Unlike other states where lawsuits challenging Obama's natural-born citizen status were required to move through lower courts, Washington State law grants the case "original jurisdiction" at the state Supreme Court, which means the plaintiff can present new evidence, including – if the court will indeed subpoena it – Obama's birth records.
Attorney Stephen Pidgeon
A new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases' dismissal: the issue of "standing."
In the case brought by Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg, for example, a federal judge ruled against the lawsuit in deciding Berg lacked the "standing" to sue, arguing that the election of Obama wouldn't cause the plaintiff specific, personal injury.
In Washington state's Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff's attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.
"These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, 'You handle the elections, it's your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],'" Stephen Pidgeon told WND, "and the secretaries of state have said, 'No, it's not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.' But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.
"Here, we have standing by means of statute," Pidgeon continued. "This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office."
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign up now!
Further, Pidgeon explained, "In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it's very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.
"He doesn't think he does; we think he does. That's really the issue before the court," Pidgeon said.
Washington's secretary of state, Mr. Sam Reed, has opposed the lawsuit, brought by a group of 12 registered Washington voters with Pidgeon's representation, on several grounds, including the argument that the issue is moot now that Obama has been voted upon by the people.
Pidgeon argues, however, that even if Obama remains in office two years from now, the issue will not be moot.
"The Constitution's criteria for president are never moot," Pidgeon explained. "Article 2, Section 1 says 'eligible to the Office of President'; it doesn't say 'eligible for candidacy to the Office of President."
Therefore, Pidgeon argues, the Constitution's natural-born citizen clause specifically and expressly addresses the man sitting in the Oval Office, not just the main elected and waiting to get in.
"If, at any time during his tenure, a birth certificate actually surfaces showing [Obama] born in Kenya," Pidgeon said, "he is disqualified from the presidency at any time. And the constitutional crisis that is rising out of this – the longer he's in that office, the greater the problem becomes, because everything he does will be illegal."
The Washington Supreme Court is set to hear Broe v. Reed on Jan. 8, but the entire case may be delayed intentionally, as the plaintiffs wait to see if the court will rule first on a requested subpoena of Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii.
Unlike other states where lawsuits challenging Obama's natural-born citizen status were required to move through lower courts, Washington law grants the case "original jurisdiction" at the state Supreme Court, which means the plaintiff can present new evidence, including – if the court will indeed subpoena it – Obama's birth records.
"We have opportunity to present facts before the Supreme Court, where you wouldn't have that normally," Pidgeon told WND. "With original jurisdiction, we have the opportunity to present factual argument, and so what we have said to the court is, 'At no time did Senator Obama produce a single piece of evidence upon which the secretary of state could rely to establish that he was a natural born citizen, or that he was even an American citizen, or that he was running under his legal name.' Those are the three facets of our lawsuit."
Pidgeon also told WND that the case's primary hurdle now is the natural predisposition judges have toward complying with the democratic will of the people. They rarely "upset the apple cart," Pidgeon said, by overturning the results of an election.
Still, Pidgeon believes pursuing Broe v. Reed is necessary.
"I expect the truth of Senator Obama's birth is going to come out," Pidgeon told WND. "It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but the truth of his birth is going to come out, and when that true fact comes out that he was born in Kenya, we will have an unprecedented constitutional crisis in this nation.
"The question is," Pidgeon figures, "will the Washington Supreme Court stand for the rule of law or are they going to stand for an overthrow of the constitutional republic by the will of the electorate?"
"Should Senator Obama be discovered,exposed as a fraud, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a similar case brought by Alan Keyes and pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Let me speculate: It could show he is illegitimate, DUAL CITIZEN AT BIRTH, maybe his "father" was a communist or radical etc. All these are real possibilities including others because obama is hiding his original birth certificate. My best guess is it will confirm he was a dual citizen at birth or born out of the US and applied for a birth certificate. Either way he is a FRAUD and a LIAR.
"Obama is a man who reflexively, instinctively, will side with what's wrong and harmful for America, and will oppose what's right and good and wholesome for America. It's uncanny. But this profoundly negative orientation is sugar-coated with a charismatic 'positive' persona and beguiling rhetoric."