jbjd
Election Fraud Complaint Filed In SC
YES!
Has obama admitted he is a FRAUD?
YES!
Did obama sware he is a natural born citizen in Arizona.
YES!
Has obama admitted he was a dual citizen at birth?
Yes
Has obama defined the term natural born citizen?
Yes
Did obama affirm a natural born citizen is one whose parents were US citizens at the time of birth?
Yes
Has obama admitted he is a FRAUD?
Yes
Why is a FRAUD president of the US?
Because the DNC certified obama as qualified according to the US Constitution.
Has the DNC committed FRAUD?
Yes
Has obama produced evidence that would confirm and verify he is a US citizen?
No
Is there no verifiable evidence obama is a US citizen?
No
What about the certification of live birth obama has on his website, can't that be verified?
No
What about various statements by Hawaiian officals about obama's citizenship, can't these statements be verified in some way as fact?
No
.......................................................................................
From Leo Donofrio's Blog:
“It is not disputed that Mr. Obama is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”
The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.
“If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.”
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
States Question Obama's Identity
Keep in mind all of the fake talk from obama about the new state law in Arizona concerning illegal aliens is just deception to avoid talking about HB 2441 which requires obama to prove he is a natural born citizen before getting on the presidential ballot in Arizona. The elephant in the room is obama and his lack of any documentation that can be verified to prove he is an American citizen. Obama could not prove he is not an illegal alien in Arizona!
.........................................................................................
4 more states, Florida, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Indiana have joined Arizona in proposing bills requiring proof of Article II Eligibility for POTUS. Does this mean this is no longer a crazy, fringe conspiracy theory movement?
Snippets from Washington Independent; 'Birther' Conspiracy Roils GOP Campaigns - State Legislators, Party Strategists Keep Anti-Obama Rumors Alive -
.........................................................................................
South Carolina-Bill 3389, freshman state Rep. Tommy Stringer has introduced legislation that would amend the state’s election code to make sure that “a candidate for President or Vice President of the United States may not have his name printed on a ballot in this State unless there is conclusive evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.”...
A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-315 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE NAME OF A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE PRINTED ON A BALLOT IN SOUTH CAROLINA UNLESS THERE IS SHOWN CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Article 3, Chapter 13, Title 7 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 7-13-315. (A) A candidate for President or Vice President of the United States may not have his name printed on a ballot in this State unless there is conclusive evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
(B) This section applies to a person, petitioner, or party placing the names of electors on the ballot."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
.........................................................................................
New Hampshire’s House bill 1245, mandates that “the names of the candidates shall not appear on the ballot unless the secretary of state has received certified copies of the birth certificates of the candidates.”
HB 1245 – VERSION ADOPTED BY BOTH BODIES
03Mar2010… 0353h
03Mar2010… 0595h
2010 SESSION
10-2043
03/09
HOUSE BILL 1245
AN ACT relative to declarations of candidacy and intent by presidential candidates.
SPONSORS: Rep. L. Christiansen, Hills 27
COMMITTEE: Election Law
AMENDED ANALYSIS
This bill modifies the declaration of candidacy and the declaration of intent to be filed by candidates for president by inserting the presidential qualifications contained in the United States Constitution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
03Mar2010… 0353h
03Mar2010… 0595h
10-2043
03/09
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten
AN ACT relative to declarations of candidacy and intent by presidential candidates.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Presidential Nominations; Declaration of Candidacy. Amend RSA 655:47, I to read as follows:
I. The names of any persons to be voted upon as candidates for president at the presidential primary shall be printed on the ballots upon the filing of declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state in the following form and signed by the candidate:
I, _______________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” I further declare that I am domiciled in __________, in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _______________, county of __________, state of __________, [and meet the qualifications for the office of president;] that I am a registered member of the __________ party; that I am a candidate for nomination for the office of president to be made at the primary election to be held on the __________ day of __________; and I hereby request that my name be printed on the official primary ballot of said __________ party as a candidate for such nomination.
2 Declarations of Intent; Presidential Candidates. Amend RSA 655:17-b, II to read as follows:
II. I, __________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” I further declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of __________, county of __________, state of __________, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of __________ to be chosen at the general election to be held on the __________ day of __________; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
.........................................................................................
Indiana’s Senate bill 82, grapples with the legal standing issue that has vexed “birthers,” granting the right to challenge qualifications to “a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election.”... .
Second Regular Session 116th General Assembly (2010)
PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.
Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2009 Regular and Special Sessions of the General Assembly.
SENATE BILL No. 82
A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning elections.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SOURCE: IC 3-8-1-2; (10)SB0082.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 3-8-1-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]: Sec. 2. (a) The commission, a county election board, or a town election board shall act if a candidate (or a person acting on behalf of a candidate in accordance with state law) has filed any of the following:
(1) A declaration of candidacy under IC 3-8-2 or IC 3-8-5.
(2) A request for ballot placement in a presidential primary under IC 3-8-3.
(3) A petition of nomination or candidate's consent to nomination under IC 3-8-6.
(4) A certificate of nomination under IC 3-8-5, IC 3-8-7, IC 3-10-2-15, or IC 3-10-6-12.
(5) A certificate of candidate selection under IC 3-13-1 or IC 3-13-2.
(6) A declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate under IC 3-8-2-2.5.
(7) A contest to the denial of certification under IC 3-8-6-12. (b) The commission has jurisdiction to act under this section with regard to any filing described in subsection (a) that was made with the election division. Except for a filing under the jurisdiction of a town election board, a county election board has jurisdiction to act under this section with regard to any filing described in subsection (a) that was made with the county election board, county voter registration office, or the circuit court clerk. A town election board has jurisdiction to act under this section with regard to any filing that was made with the county election board, the county voter registration office, or the circuit court clerk for nomination or election to a town office.
(c) Except as provided in subsection (e), before the commission or election board acts under this section, a registered voter of the election district that a candidate seeks to represent jurisdiction conducting an election that includes on the ballot the office for which a candidate has made a filing described in subsection (a) must file a sworn statement with the election division or election board:
(1) questioning the eligibility of a the candidate to seek the office; and
(2) setting forth the facts known to the voter concerning this question.
(d) The eligibility of a write-in candidate or a candidate nominated by a convention, petition, or primary may not be challenged under this section if the commission or board determines that all of the following occurred:
(1) The eligibility of the candidate was challenged under this section before the candidate was nominated.
(2) The commission or board conducted a hearing on the affidavit before the nomination.
(3) This challenge would be based on substantially the same grounds as the previous challenge to the candidate.
(e) Before the commission or election board can consider a contest to the denial of a certification under IC 3-8-6-12, a candidate (or a person acting on behalf of a candidate in accordance with state law) must file a sworn statement with the election division or election board:
(1) stating specifically the basis for the contest; and
(2) setting forth the facts known to the candidate supporting the basis for the contest.
(f) Upon the filing of a sworn statement under subsection (c) or (e), the commission or election board shall determine the validity of the questioned:
(1) declaration of candidacy;
(2) declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate; (3) request for ballot placement under IC 3-8-3;
(4) petition of nomination;
(5) certificate of nomination;
(6) certificate of candidate selection issued under IC 3-13-1-15 or IC 3-13-2-8; or
(7) denial of a certification under IC 3-8-6-12.
(g) The commission or election board shall deny a filing if the commission or election board determines that the candidate has not complied with the applicable requirements for the candidate set forth in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Indiana, or this title.
.........................................................................................
Arizona House bill 2441, titled: presidential candidates; proof of qualifications
REFERENCE TITLE: presidential candidates; proof of qualifications
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2010
HB 2441
Introduced by
Representatives Burges, Ash, Barnes, Biggs, Gowan, Hendrix, Lesko, Mason, Montenegro, Seel, Williams, Senators Gray C, Gray L, Harper, Pearce R: Representatives Antenori, Barto, Boone, Court, Crump, Driggs, Goodale, Jones, Kavanagh, Konopnicki, McComish, McLain, Nichols, Pratt, Reagan, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Yarbrough, Senators Allen S, Gorman, Huppenthal, Melvin, Nelson, Verschoor
AN ACT
amending section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to conduct of elections.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
START_STATUTE16-507. Presentation of presidential electors on ballot; notice; affidavit; verification
A. When presidential electors are to be voted for, the candidates therefor of each party shall be grouped and printed together, arranged in each group in alphabetical order, and the entire group of electors of each party shall be enclosed in a scroll or bracket to the right and opposite the center on which shall be printed in bold type the surname of the presidential candidate represented. To the right of and on a line with the surname shall be placed a square in which the voter may indicate his the voter's choice by a mark as defined in section 16‑400, and one mark opposite a group of presidential electors shall be counted as a vote for each elector in such group.
B. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party's nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate's name on the ballot.
........................................................................................
Before obama was nominated he signed a resolution describing himself as ineligible to be president.
Obama defines the term natural born citizen
Obama committed fraud in Arizona before taking office by swearing he was a natural born citizen Obama commits fraud in Arizona
Obama commits fraud in Arizona before the election
A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY OBAMA SWEARING AND CERTIFYING HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THIS DOCUMENT TESTIFYING HE IS “A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN.”
This document is "the smoking gun" because it is HIS word that he is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. He says “i do solemnly swear he is a natural u.s. born citizen”.
.........................................................................................
4 more states, Florida, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Indiana have joined Arizona in proposing bills requiring proof of Article II Eligibility for POTUS. Does this mean this is no longer a crazy, fringe conspiracy theory movement?
Snippets from Washington Independent; 'Birther' Conspiracy Roils GOP Campaigns - State Legislators, Party Strategists Keep Anti-Obama Rumors Alive -
.........................................................................................
South Carolina-Bill 3389, freshman state Rep. Tommy Stringer has introduced legislation that would amend the state’s election code to make sure that “a candidate for President or Vice President of the United States may not have his name printed on a ballot in this State unless there is conclusive evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.”...
A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-315 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE NAME OF A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE PRINTED ON A BALLOT IN SOUTH CAROLINA UNLESS THERE IS SHOWN CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Article 3, Chapter 13, Title 7 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 7-13-315. (A) A candidate for President or Vice President of the United States may not have his name printed on a ballot in this State unless there is conclusive evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
(B) This section applies to a person, petitioner, or party placing the names of electors on the ballot."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
.........................................................................................
New Hampshire’s House bill 1245, mandates that “the names of the candidates shall not appear on the ballot unless the secretary of state has received certified copies of the birth certificates of the candidates.”
HB 1245 – VERSION ADOPTED BY BOTH BODIES
03Mar2010… 0353h
03Mar2010… 0595h
2010 SESSION
10-2043
03/09
HOUSE BILL 1245
AN ACT relative to declarations of candidacy and intent by presidential candidates.
SPONSORS: Rep. L. Christiansen, Hills 27
COMMITTEE: Election Law
AMENDED ANALYSIS
This bill modifies the declaration of candidacy and the declaration of intent to be filed by candidates for president by inserting the presidential qualifications contained in the United States Constitution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
03Mar2010… 0353h
03Mar2010… 0595h
10-2043
03/09
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten
AN ACT relative to declarations of candidacy and intent by presidential candidates.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Presidential Nominations; Declaration of Candidacy. Amend RSA 655:47, I to read as follows:
I. The names of any persons to be voted upon as candidates for president at the presidential primary shall be printed on the ballots upon the filing of declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state in the following form and signed by the candidate:
I, _______________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” I further declare that I am domiciled in __________, in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _______________, county of __________, state of __________, [and meet the qualifications for the office of president;] that I am a registered member of the __________ party; that I am a candidate for nomination for the office of president to be made at the primary election to be held on the __________ day of __________; and I hereby request that my name be printed on the official primary ballot of said __________ party as a candidate for such nomination.
2 Declarations of Intent; Presidential Candidates. Amend RSA 655:17-b, II to read as follows:
II. I, __________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” I further declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of __________, county of __________, state of __________, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of __________ to be chosen at the general election to be held on the __________ day of __________; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
.........................................................................................
Indiana’s Senate bill 82, grapples with the legal standing issue that has vexed “birthers,” granting the right to challenge qualifications to “a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election.”... .
Second Regular Session 116th General Assembly (2010)
PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.
Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2009 Regular and Special Sessions of the General Assembly.
SENATE BILL No. 82
A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning elections.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SOURCE: IC 3-8-1-2; (10)SB0082.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 3-8-1-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]: Sec. 2. (a) The commission, a county election board, or a town election board shall act if a candidate (or a person acting on behalf of a candidate in accordance with state law) has filed any of the following:
(1) A declaration of candidacy under IC 3-8-2 or IC 3-8-5.
(2) A request for ballot placement in a presidential primary under IC 3-8-3.
(3) A petition of nomination or candidate's consent to nomination under IC 3-8-6.
(4) A certificate of nomination under IC 3-8-5, IC 3-8-7, IC 3-10-2-15, or IC 3-10-6-12.
(5) A certificate of candidate selection under IC 3-13-1 or IC 3-13-2.
(6) A declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate under IC 3-8-2-2.5.
(7) A contest to the denial of certification under IC 3-8-6-12. (b) The commission has jurisdiction to act under this section with regard to any filing described in subsection (a) that was made with the election division. Except for a filing under the jurisdiction of a town election board, a county election board has jurisdiction to act under this section with regard to any filing described in subsection (a) that was made with the county election board, county voter registration office, or the circuit court clerk. A town election board has jurisdiction to act under this section with regard to any filing that was made with the county election board, the county voter registration office, or the circuit court clerk for nomination or election to a town office.
(c) Except as provided in subsection (e), before the commission or election board acts under this section, a registered voter of the election district that a candidate seeks to represent jurisdiction conducting an election that includes on the ballot the office for which a candidate has made a filing described in subsection (a) must file a sworn statement with the election division or election board:
(1) questioning the eligibility of a the candidate to seek the office; and
(2) setting forth the facts known to the voter concerning this question.
(d) The eligibility of a write-in candidate or a candidate nominated by a convention, petition, or primary may not be challenged under this section if the commission or board determines that all of the following occurred:
(1) The eligibility of the candidate was challenged under this section before the candidate was nominated.
(2) The commission or board conducted a hearing on the affidavit before the nomination.
(3) This challenge would be based on substantially the same grounds as the previous challenge to the candidate.
(e) Before the commission or election board can consider a contest to the denial of a certification under IC 3-8-6-12, a candidate (or a person acting on behalf of a candidate in accordance with state law) must file a sworn statement with the election division or election board:
(1) stating specifically the basis for the contest; and
(2) setting forth the facts known to the candidate supporting the basis for the contest.
(f) Upon the filing of a sworn statement under subsection (c) or (e), the commission or election board shall determine the validity of the questioned:
(1) declaration of candidacy;
(2) declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate; (3) request for ballot placement under IC 3-8-3;
(4) petition of nomination;
(5) certificate of nomination;
(6) certificate of candidate selection issued under IC 3-13-1-15 or IC 3-13-2-8; or
(7) denial of a certification under IC 3-8-6-12.
(g) The commission or election board shall deny a filing if the commission or election board determines that the candidate has not complied with the applicable requirements for the candidate set forth in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Indiana, or this title.
.........................................................................................
Arizona House bill 2441, titled: presidential candidates; proof of qualifications
REFERENCE TITLE: presidential candidates; proof of qualifications
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2010
HB 2441
Introduced by
Representatives Burges, Ash, Barnes, Biggs, Gowan, Hendrix, Lesko, Mason, Montenegro, Seel, Williams, Senators Gray C, Gray L, Harper, Pearce R: Representatives Antenori, Barto, Boone, Court, Crump, Driggs, Goodale, Jones, Kavanagh, Konopnicki, McComish, McLain, Nichols, Pratt, Reagan, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Yarbrough, Senators Allen S, Gorman, Huppenthal, Melvin, Nelson, Verschoor
AN ACT
amending section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to conduct of elections.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
START_STATUTE16-507. Presentation of presidential electors on ballot; notice; affidavit; verification
A. When presidential electors are to be voted for, the candidates therefor of each party shall be grouped and printed together, arranged in each group in alphabetical order, and the entire group of electors of each party shall be enclosed in a scroll or bracket to the right and opposite the center on which shall be printed in bold type the surname of the presidential candidate represented. To the right of and on a line with the surname shall be placed a square in which the voter may indicate his the voter's choice by a mark as defined in section 16‑400, and one mark opposite a group of presidential electors shall be counted as a vote for each elector in such group.
B. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party's nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate's name on the ballot.
........................................................................................
Before obama was nominated he signed a resolution describing himself as ineligible to be president.
Obama defines the term natural born citizen
Obama committed fraud in Arizona before taking office by swearing he was a natural born citizen Obama commits fraud in Arizona
Obama commits fraud in Arizona before the election
A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY OBAMA SWEARING AND CERTIFYING HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THIS DOCUMENT TESTIFYING HE IS “A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN.”
This document is "the smoking gun" because it is HIS word that he is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. He says “i do solemnly swear he is a natural u.s. born citizen”.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said, "I think many in the military – and many out of the military – question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama"
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said, "I think many in the military – and many out of the military – question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama. … I'm not convinced that he is [a natural-born citizen]."
(Maj Gen Valley is correct. Many millions question the natural born birth status of obama. Millions of US citizens are also not convinced obama is a natural born citizen. There is also a growing number of military people who are on the verge of also following in the footsteps of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. The dam is about to bust and obama must produce evidence he is a natural born US citizen. I know obama is not a natural born citizen because he was born to one parent who was a Kenyan citizen when obama was born. Because of this obama was a dual citizen at birth and is not a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is a US citizen who at birth had parents who were both US citizens. The US Constitution requires only the president to be a natural born citizen. Obama is a FRAUD and imposter.) Story Reports
Obama admits he was a dual citizen at birth
A retired Army general and national security policy expert says Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has "a valid point" and should use his "right to discovery" to force the Obama administration to produce proof of his natural-born citizenship status.
Vallely, CEO of Stand Up America U.S., graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961, serving 32 years.
He said he inspected his own long-form birth certificate, and it contains a doctor's name, date and location of birth.
"But he's never been able to produce that," he said of Obama. "His unwillingness to do it also concerns me. I think Lt. Col. Lakin has a valid point. … He refuses to produce a birth certificate that states the witnessing of the birth, the date and who is the doctor. We don't know why he won't come out with that."
the Army has filed two charges against Lakin, citing alleged violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 87 and 92.
Lakin publicly asked the president to document his eligibility and expressed a willingness to deploy with the 32nd Cavalry Regiment to Afghanistan, without response from the White House.
The filing of charges may, however, be part of the still-unrevealed strategy Lakin and his legal counselors are pursuing.
Asked whether Lakin will have a "right of discovery" during a court-martial – meaning Lakin's legal team could compel the administration to produce proof of eligibility during the course of the government's prosecution – Vallely replied, "Absolutely. Sure, he has a right to discovery. There's no doubt about that. Producing a birth certificate that has all the details on it, it seems to me, is very important."
Vallely added, "You can call witnesses. I would call the state government of Hawaii. I would require [proof of] which hospital he was born in. I'd want verification from the doctor or the nurse or whomever witnessed it that, in fact, it did happen in Hawaii. That has not been done to date. These are questions that have not been answered, and that's what concerns many people."
Vallely said America hasn't seen military officers stepping forward in droves to challenge Obama's eligibility because they know doing so might endanger their careers.
"The officer corps does not want to put itself in any kind of jeopardy because of their position and because of the fact that they don't want to go the political route," he said. "I don't think you're going to get your senior officers or senior political appointees to put themselves on the spot because they're probably afraid that they'll lose their position or promotion, so they'll take no position on it. But if somebody in the lower ranks stands up, they're going to take them on and court-martial them, or attempt to court-martial them. That's the situation."
Vallely expressed deep concern about what he believes is a national drift away from basic constitutional principles.
"That disturbs me more than anything, and that's why we've got to stand up, because we're getting in more trouble," he said. "It's like we're watching Washington burn as Nero watched Rome. What are we doing about it?"
He added, "Only the people can solve this problem. That's why the people must stand up and do what's right for America because we can't go this deviant route anymore. If not, we're lost as a country."
Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
........................................................................................
Obama admits he was a british citizen at birth
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Obama Won't Be On The 2012 Ballot
Arizona House votes to check candidates' citizenship.
PHOENIX (AP) - The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for re-election.
The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
..........................................................................................
Tancredo urges Tea Partiers to send Obama back to Kenya
By Eric Zimmermann - 04/19/10 02:11 PM ET
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) urged Tea Partiers this weekend to help "send [Obama] back" to Kenya.
Speaking at a rally in Greenville, S.C., on Saturday, Tancredo cited remarks Michelle Obama made earlier this month in which she called Kenya was the president's "home country."
"If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?" Tancredo said, according to the Greenville News.
.........................................................................................
I agree. Obama should go back to his "home country" as his wife says. Kenya claims him as a son of their soil. (Story Reports)
Kenyan Officals Affirm obama son of this soil
Kenyan officials affirm: Obama ’son of this soil’
By chicagoray
The evidence that the present president was indeed born outside of the US keeps mounting, which liberals have and will refuse to believe no matter what happens heretofore (they say the exact same thing about Obama foes demanding proof) but as long as the evidence continues to be amassed by the work of others , like WorldNetDaily’s Joesph Farah who’s gambling his entire career and future credibility on proving the claims are truth, I’ll continue to evaluate it and post it if I deem it worthy. Smile
And frankly the Kenyan Government are no birther’s, who last time I checked don’t bow in deference to the American Tea Party movement and have some actual skin in the game as well, their reputations and credibility amongst their own people. People by the way who unequivocally happen to believe Obama to be ” a native son of their Kenyan Soil”. I didn’t say that quote, they did, and have been now for a couple years now, just like us.
So what’s their motive other wanting to cash in on the fact that the US president was born on their soil along with pride?
They’re as adamant as any birther’s out here on the subject! Which frankly in my opinion shows us all “true liberal racism” on their parts around the world, since they summarily dismiss the Kenyan officials’ claims just as they do “birther’s” who they (liberals) refer to as racists for this belief. So one can extrapolate from that assumption that anyone agreeing with said “birther’s” would be racist themselves. They are the ones if anyone who would and should know the truth, and I happen to believe along with tens of millions, not thousands, that this is the truth.
So here now is the third account from a Kenyan official claiming Obama’s birth, and that does not include Obama’s Kenyan Grandmother ,who adamantly claims and has since the election, that she actually witnessed little Barry’s birth with her own Kenyan born eyes
On the floor of the Kenyan National Assembly the day after Barack Obama was elected U.S. president, members of the African country's parliament celebrated “a Kenyan ruling the USA,” calling Obama “a son of the soil of this country.”
As WND reported, Kenyan MP James Orengo asked the nation's parliament only last month, “How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”
Nominated MP Millie Odhiambo requested of the chair, “The president-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and color. I, therefore, seek leave of the House that we adjourn to discuss the issue.”
Eventually, the chair was compelled to issue an official statement of congratulations in the effort to move the session forward. Deputy Speaker Maalim Farah delivered the statement, in which he echoed Odhiambo's “son of the soil” language:
“Honorable members, as you may be aware, the people of the United States of America have just had a historic election where the son of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been elected the 44th president of the United States of America and the first African-American president in the history of that country,” said Farah, “please join me in registering and sending this House's congratulations to the President-elect Obama for overcoming great odds to emerge victorious.”
Obama is the son of kenyan soil and he has not denied kenyan officials.
Obama is son of kenyan soil
Monday, April 19, 2010
More Expansions Of Federal Power That Are Totalitarian
More Expansions Of Federal Power That Is Totalitarian.
Recognize the face? Yes they do look much alike. Both wanted to destroy the private sector so the "state" could take complete control. Hitler stripped the firearms from the people before declaring himself dictator. Obama wants to strip firearms from Americans. He knows he can never "rule" nor can any dictator when the people have firearms to prevent total takeover by a totalitarian regime.
The House financial regulation bill provides for no judicial review and does not require any objective evidence of imminent failure to trigger the takeover provisions.
Essentially, this bill permits the government to launch an unfriendly takeover of any financial institution it wishes without risk or other counter-measures possible.
This is socialism desguised as a fix for a straw man problem the federal government created.
The carter administration and clinton administration made the manufactured financial crisis expand while doing nothing to control or regulate the growing financial disaster. It was encouraged and expanded.
The private sector took advantage of the governments lack of regulation and expanded the financial disaster.
The government required banks to make bad loans to people who could not afford to get the loans. The banks resold the bad loans as derivatives and other "financial" instruments.
Fanniemae and freddiemac expanded and acted like a speculation clearing house.
The US government created the manufactured crisis. The US government now wants to fix the strawman manufactured financial crisis.
This is Totalitarian control of the private sector.
Obama is a communist that will destroy the US economy by killing off large sectors at a time through government takeovers.
Obama is a traitor and a FRAUD. As long as Americans "cling to their guns" obama and others like him must stay at arms length.
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser.
Now that obama is "president" he will bring a gun to the fight.
Remember obama wants your firearms and will bring a gun to take your firearms away if he thinks he can get away with it.
Obama considers Americans as people who cling to their guns and will defend themselves with a knife. This is what he said.
I say cling to your knife and guns and remember to bring your guns to the fight. Obama has warned you he will bring a gun to the fight. He was talking about the general election. If obama wanted to bring a gun to defeat republicans in the general election don't you think he would bring a gun to defeat any other oppostion as president? Obama is not bluffing. Americans are not bluffing. Obama is a coward and a strawman. He can be defeated just as hitler was.
(Story Reports)
..............................................................................................................
04.14.2010
Published on TheHill.com on April 13, 2010
If the financial regulation bill that passed the House last year becomes law, President Obama and his Treasury Secretary will acquire the right to take over any financial institution they wish to, provided that, in their sole opinion, it is both “too big to fail” and on the brink of insolvency. The House bill provides for no judicial review and does not require any objective evidence of imminent failure to trigger the takeover provisions.
Once the government takes over such a company, it will acquire the right to replace the entire board of directors, fire the management of the company, wipe out stockholder equity and even sell off divisions of the company.
Essentially, this bill permits the government to launch an unfriendly takeover of any financial institution it wishes without risk and with no poison pill or other counter-measures possible.
This legislation, essentially, confers on the federal government police powers that, under our system, are the exclusive preserve of state and local government. The blank check the bill gives the feds to take over any financial institution is really more of an exercise of eminent domain than it is an extension of traditional federal regulatory power.
This grant of power to the executive branch is unprecedented and potentially totalitarian. Consider:
• Will Obama, or any future president, target companies that are particularly vocal in their opposition to his policies or generous in funding his political opponents? Will the fact that Obama would have this power force companies, investors, CEOs and managers to self-censor their opinions and political involvement because they fear the wrath of a vengeful president?
• Will this grant of authority force companies to hesitate before they grow and expand? Will it function the same way the antitrust powers of the Justice Department do in making companies re-examine mergers and acquisitions with a view toward what Justice will think of their resulting market share? In antitrust situations, where a specific action brings companies under scrutiny — like a merger — such concern is not unreasonable. But when the simple act of making money, showing a profit and expanding in size puts a company in federal crosshairs, does this not have the potential to attenuate the capitalist focus on growth?
• In an environment where the feds are looking over the shoulder of every financial institution to see if they should take it over and shut it down, will this not force financial companies to follow the most risk-averse lending policies possible? Doesn’t this mean that it only makes sense to buy government paper, since consumer loans, mortgages and business lending could be considered risky and lead to a federal takeover? Isn’t this policy precisely the opposite of what we need to catalyze economic growth?
• In a political world where contributions from financial institutions are sought and widely given, doesn’t this power give the president and his party unlimited fundraising ability, simply by baring its teeth and showing the power it has to take anybody over and fire anybody? Given the fact that Goldman-Sachs was the second-largest donor to Obama’s campaign, giving $954,795, doesn’t this new power raise the specter that the federal government could take over financial institutions so as to make the competition lighter for its donors? Already, there is considerable evidence (cited in our new book, 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan) that Goldman profited handsomely from the decision of its former CEO — Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson — to allow Lehman Brothers to fail. Now that the Treasury secretary will have the takeover power, might it not be used as irresponsibly and with as many bad consequences as Paulson used his power in the Lehman crisis?
While the focus on the regulatory bill has been on the consumer protection provisions, which I tend to support, there has been far less scrutiny on these horrific expansions of federal power.
Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez could only dream of this power.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/04/14/obamas-terrible-powers/Sunday, April 18, 2010
Bill clinton creates a straw man to attack
Former president Bill Clinton has told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he is worried that anti-government rhetoric will lead to violence and another Oklahoma City. He said he is concerned about people opposed to the government using the internet.
(Clinton is concerned about me and my opposition to the obama regime. If you refer to a government or system of running a country as a regime, you are critical of it because you think it is not democratic and uses unacceptable methods. Clinton is mixing American opposition to obama with the Oklahoma City bombing. Bill clinton is worried "anti-government" rhetoric, which is free speech, will lead to violence just because Americans are opposing what obama and the democrates are doing. This is like a "political race card " being played. The "race card" is any and all oppostion to obama. I'm concerned about bill clinton using the state run media to create the "straw man" of violence because of anti-government rhetoric. I and worried that his anti-American rhetoric will lead to a government excuse for violence! ) Story Reports
.............................................................................................................
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
Government defined terrorists, Clinton said, “can communicate with each other much faster and much better than they did before. The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the Internet that if you knew how to find a Web site — and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb” like the one used to bring down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people.
(Clinton is concerned about me and my opposition to the obama regime. If you refer to a government or system of running a country as a regime, you are critical of it because you think it is not democratic and uses unacceptable methods. Clinton is mixing American opposition to obama with the Oklahoma City bombing. Bill clinton is worried "anti-government" rhetoric, which is free speech, will lead to violence just because Americans are opposing what obama and the democrates are doing. This is like a "political race card " being played. The "race card" is any and all oppostion to obama. I'm concerned about bill clinton using the state run media to create the "straw man" of violence because of anti-government rhetoric. I and worried that his anti-American rhetoric will lead to a government excuse for violence! ) Story Reports
.............................................................................................................
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
Government defined terrorists, Clinton said, “can communicate with each other much faster and much better than they did before. The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the Internet that if you knew how to find a Web site — and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb” like the one used to bring down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people.
Beyond the obvious propaganda designed to link the Tea Party movement to domestic terrorism — a sign that the government is indeed desperate to discredit growing opposition — Bill Clinton’s remarks reveal just how alarmed the establishment is over the opposition’s use of the internet as an organizational and educational tool. Traditional corporate media propaganda avenues are now avoided by growing numbers of Americans who no longer trust the government and the lies it disseminates via the corporate media.
Clinton also appeared on ABC where he repeated his assertion that opposition to the government is domestic terrorism (he has yet to use that specific term, however). Once again, he brought up the specter of Oklahoma City. “And we shouldn’t demonize the government or its public employees or its elected officials. We can disagree with them,” Clinton told Jack Tapper. “We ought to remember after Oklahoma City, we learned something about the difference in disagreement and demonization.”
He launched the effort to blur the lines between legitimate anti-government opposition and the documented false flag attack in Oklahoma on Friday during a speech at the Center for American Progress Action Fund in California.Monday is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and the premeditated government massacre that slaughtered 76 people in Waco, more than 20 of them children. Clinton was president at the time and is directly responsible along with his attorney general Janet Reno for the massacre in Texas two years before the Oklahoma City bombing.
“I’m glad they’re fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled,” he said. “What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold — but that the words we use really do matter, because there’s this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike.”
It certainly looks like the government is preparing another false flag attack to demonize the patriot movement and the real Tea Party movement (the Republican hijacked Tea Party is not a threat and will follow orders this November and vote for establishment candidates).
It is no mistake Bill Clinton’s demonization campaign is timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Is it a prelude to yet another false flag attack to be blamed by the government and its Mockingbird corporate media on those of us opposed to an authoritarian federal government?
A government orchestrated terror event somewhere within the United States exploited as an excuse to crack down on the opposition is the government’s only viable option at this point.
Millions of Americans are now awake and mobilized in opposition to the government. Increased and growing activism now threatens the establishment. The Tea Party movement is only the most obvious manifestation of an effort to take back control of the government from the elite and their corporate minions.
Faced with such historically significant opposition, the establishment has two options – capitulate or attack the movement indirectly through false flag terrorism. Attacking the movement directly would create even more support for the opposition and further legitimize their argument that the federal government is tyrannical.
The Chrysler appeal by the rejected dealers has been assigned to the Honorable Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the District Court
The Chrysler appeal by the rejected dealers has been assigned to the Honorable Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon will appear when oral argument is scheduled.
http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/rejected-dealers-brief-on-appeal-pdf.pdf
Leo Donofrio has posted the full appellate brief here. Case No. CV 2493 Rejected Dealers Brief On Appeal, United States District Court Southern District Of New York
I have read this brief and it is obvious judge Gonzales has committed fraud on the court. It is also obvious that the debtor's counsel has committed fraud on the court. I urge you to read this brief also and become aware of the "judicial ventriloquism".
Obama is also a ventriloquist, and excels at "political ventriloquism" . Obama makes up a "straw man" and then makes it look as if his voice is coming from another person, the "straw man". The straw man obama has subverted the US Constitution by not being a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires for the presidency of the US. Obama is a ventriloquist who speaks through the staw man he has created, which is himself.
Obama the straw man:
“Some say I acted unfairly by forcing auto company bondholders to accept equity stakes of just 9% while granting 20% to the unions whose overly generous wage and benefits programs helped drive the companies to bankruptcy,” said Obama. “But I think the American people will understand the choice I made was the only one consitent with our values, considering the alternative was making auto company stakeholders eat syringes.”
In a largely one-sided exchange of ideas, the straw man reiterated his usual arguments, saying “We should just to do nothing,” “We can address these issues with half-steps and piecemeal measures,” and “While our opponent chooses unity and hope, we support road rage and peach phobias."
(Just think about how STUPID a quote this is.) Story Reports
Obama took the offensive to thunderous applause, stating “I reject the philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only the government flooded houses with molasses.”
(This is another straw man quote that supposes people want their houses "flooded with molasses.") Story Reports
Finally, the president offered an emphatic retort to end the debate. “No longer,” he said, “will we accept the notion that hate and fear can fulfill all our nation’s energy needs.”
The straw man obama speaks through himself and tells us "hate and fear" are what some people think will fulfill all our nations energy needs." Remember the straw man in the wizard of oz? He feared fire more than anything. Obama's straw man fears that he will become known as the man behind the straw man and be exposed as the total FRAUD he is. (Story Reports)
............................................................................................................
From Jun 9,2009, when the court issued its rejection Order, the rejected dealers had exactly 10 days to file a notice of appeal.
Judge Gonzalez failed to issue his Rejection Opinion until June 19,2009, exactly 10 days after the Rejection Order was issued.
Therefore, the original time to appeal had basically expired before any grounds for appeal could be properly identified in the Rejection Opinion.
Leo Donofrio calls it "judicial ventriloquism".
Footnote 21 contains two false statements. A false assertion was made in footnote 21. There was only one question and one answer.
Reviewing Footnote 21 again:
REJECTED DEALERS’ BRIEF ON APPEAL 7
"Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.”
The first false statement is that Altavilla “responded affirmatively” to a question regarding whether the dealership network needed to be restructured for the sale to close. Altavilla’s answer was actually a negative response in that it made no “material difference” to Fiat when dealer restructuring took place. There is no possible way Altavilla’s response could be taken as an affirmative answer to the question presented. That's a linguistic impossibility.
Second, the answer as parsed by Judge Gonzalez – “restructuring needs to occur” - is not time sensitive. The parsed response doesn't indicate whether “restructuring needs to occur” before or after the sale closes. The answer as parsed is nonresponsive and certainly misleading. And there is no justification for the Court having spliced an unintended response into the record. An affirmative answer would have been, “Restructuring needs to occur for the sale to close”. That would have been an affirmative response. But “restructure needs to occur” on its own is actually non-responsive since it doesn't say whether restructuring had to occur before the sale closed.
Meanwhile, the very next sentence - "Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference” explains perfectly that the witness did give a time sensitive answer - not in the affirmative - but in the negative. The plain meaning of Altavilla’s complete response is that restructuring did not need to occur for the sale to close. There is no lawful justification for allowing the fraudulent Footnote 21 to stand. Tellingly, Judge Gonzalez didn't even try to defend the merits of Footnote 21 in his Opinion on Reconsideration.
Movants initially claimed that Judge Gonzalez’s misstatement in Footnote 21 was so egregious as to exhibit a reckless disregard for the truth, regardless of intent.
Movants relied upon Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2001) in support of the “reckless disregard for the truth” standard:
“The elements of a 'fraud upon the court' are numerous. Fraud on the court is conduct: 1) on the part of an officer of the court; 2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself; 3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 5) that deceives the court.”
Workman v. Bell at 852.
The situation was further compounded and confused by Footnote 18 in the same June 19, 2009 Rejection Opinion which discussed the very same question and answer cited by Gonzalez in Footnote 21. Where Footnote 18 correctly states Altavilla's testimony, Footnote 21 is utterly false thereby making the two footnotes schizophrenic:
Footnote 18 “Altavilla testified that it did not make a material difference whether the restructuring of the dealership network occurred before or after the closing of the Fiat Transaction...”
Footnote 21 “...Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a "restructuring needs to occur."
Anyone not familiar with the May 29th Hearing Transcript would be left with the impression that Footnotes 18 and 21 refer to separate questions and answers, when in reality, all of this stems from the same question and answer. Had the Court been confronted with two separate answers by the same witness, Judge Gonzalez might have weighed both answers and chosen between them the answer he gave more weight to. But that was not the case. There was only one question and one answer. Therefore, Footnotes 18 and 21 stand in stark indefensible contrast to each other since Footnote 18 is true and Footnote 21 is false. As such, by the creation of the false assertion in Footnote 21, the Court has changed the testimony of this key witness.
A Judge certainly does not have the power to change testimony of a witness and then rely upon the changed testimony in his Order and Opinion. Judge Gonzalez’s refusal to acknowledge the error when it was so clearly laid out for him in Movants’ Memo, and to thereafter stand by it, elevates Judge Gonzalez’s conduct from reckless to intentional.
Judge Gonzalez changed the meaning of Altavilla's testimony and then relied upon his own revision to support the Rejection Order. The court has therefore been defrauded and it is entirely irrelevant that the time for direct appeal has expired.
Additionally, Judge Gonzalez does not disclose that his distortion of Altavilla’s testimony is the fraud on the court that ultimately influenced his Rejection Order.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the record of the case indicating that Fiat, or any other faction of New Chrysler (including the US Government, the Canadian Government or the United Auto Workers) ever requested that the Movants' contracts be rejected by the Debtor. Old Chrysler Chairman and CEO Robert Nardelli was very candid about this (see May 28, 2009 Hearing Transcript at 390):
Q. Did the UAW ask for this dealer reduction?
A. No.
Q. Did the American government ask for this dealer reduction?
A. No.
Q. Did the Canadian government ask for this dealer reduction?
A. No.
Q. Did Fiat ask for this dealer reduction?
A. No, I don't recall -- again, that -- I don't know if that was an item that was expressly indicated in the agreement or not.
Objection Memo at par. 44, pgs. 25-26):
"Further, the Dealer Rejection Opinion disproves the Movants' argument on the merits. The Court’s statements therein [emphasis added] show that the Court did not conceal, mischaracterize or alter Mr. Altavilla's testimony and was fully aware of his statement that Fiat did not perceive a material difference in whether the dealership rejections occurred before or after the closing of the Fiat Transactions, as long as the network restructuring did, in fact, occur as part of the sale transaction."
This statement is fraudulent. Debtor's Counsel has mysteriously supplemented the record by alleging that Mr. Altavilla's testimony states dealer restructuring needed to occur “as part of the sale transaction”. But nowhere does Altavilla say anything of the sort. This new assertion is also an intentional fraud upon this Court. Debtor's Counsel makes this claim before the court, when no such testimony exists anywhere in the record. It's a blatant lie.
In support of this lie, Debtor's Counsel states, "See Dealer Rejection Opinion at 195-97 (containing several references to Altavilla's testimony)." But when you visit the Rejection Opinion at 195-197 (referring to In re Old Carco, LLC, 406 B.R. 180 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009), there is no such quote from Altavilla. Had Altavilla actually made such a statement, Debtor’s Counsel would surely cite to a page in the hearing transcript where such testimony could be found. But there is no such testimony. Debtor instead relies upon the Court’s Opinion - the very thing being challenged in the first place. This exhibits the judicial machinery breaking down into chaos as the Court's Opinion should not serve as the citation to the witness's testimony. If the witness made the statement alleged by Debtor's Counsel, then Counsel is required to cite to the transcript and quote the witness therefrom. But that would be impossible since no such testimony exists.
Counsel’s fabrication is repeated again (on pg. 26 at par. 45 of Debtor’s Objection Brief) by their insertion of words into Mr. Altavilla’s mouth which he did not utter on the record:
“Mr. Altavilla’s snippet of testimony on which Movants rely merely addressed the issue of timing — i.e., did the contract designations have to take place before or after closing. Mr. Altavilla testified that either was fine, as long as the restructuring was accomplished as part of the sale transaction.”
Altavilla said no such thing. There is absolutely no support for this false assertion. It's another intentional fraud upon the Court since Debtor’s Counsel knows very well there is no testimony by Mr. Altavilla which states that dealer restructuring had to be “accomplished as part of the sale transaction.”
Debtor's Counsel doesn't quote to any such testimony because no such testimony exists. This behavior is the very definition of fraud on the court.
Bankruptcy courts, as courts of equity, cannot tolerate the changing of witness testimony by a judge or a litigant.
http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/rejected-dealers-brief-on-appeal-pdf.pdf
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/chrysler-appeal-assigned-in-southern-district-of-new-york/
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections
Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections
In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as 'Consequence Management Response Force' will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President. (FRAUD President)
The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart, Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.
According to the Army Times,
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.
The key phrase is 'may be called upon to help with civil unrest.'
This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military. This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.
The source described this as 'our long, hot summer of discontent' that could be eerily reminiscent of the summer of 1968 when riots broke out in many of our largest cities.
However, the summer of 2010 could well be much worse due to the players involved. In 1968 the major players were war protesters. This time, the outrage simmering beneath the surface of American society involves a broad cross-section of the heartland, and most of them are heavily armed.
It is highly unlikely that these citizens would ever initiate armed conflict of any kind. In their view, gun rights are for self-defense--and for defense against tyrannical government, which our Founders regarded as the most dangerous force on earth.
However, it has become clear that other groups may well initiate violence in order to start an 'incident' that would give Obama and a rogue Congress a reason to implement martial law, confiscate the citizens' guns, enforce curfews, and suspend all future elections until such time as it is deemed 'safe' to proceed with human liberty as encapsulated in the right to vote.
Tea Party members, for example, have been warned in recent days that members of Andy Stern's SEIU union and members of the organization formerly known as ACORN plan to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings in order to incite some sort of incident that could result in armed conflict.
In addition, all indications point to a humiliating defeat for the Democrats and Obama in November. Not only will the House in all likelihood transfer to Republican control, but it is increasingly possible for the Democrats to lose the Senate as well.
And there are Leftwing groups in this country that would use whatever means necessary to prevent that from happening.
ACORN has already gone underground, changing its name so as to fly beneath the radar screen. How many people will the group register to vote illegally?
And with Obama's plan to naturalize between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens, a brand new voter base for the Democrats will be in place prior to November.
Add to this the growing unrest over continued high unemployment, the coming spike in interest rates and inflation, and the still-boiling outrage over the manner in which Obama and the Democrats shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the citizens, and all of the ingredients are present for a major F-5 tornado to sweep across the heartland.
To what extent would soldiers use deadly force during such 'civil unrest' should the Consequence Management Response Team be utilized? During the anti-war riots of the 1960s they killed student protesters. What about now?
The military source cited by the radio host today was asked this very question. He would merely say that the culture of the U.S. military is changing--half support Obama and the other half are dead-set against him.
His conclusion? There is no way to know for sure if they would obey an order to open fire on ordinary citizens.
(Americans need to defend themselves against the "half" that support obama if need be. Obama the imposter I believe will stop at nothing to keep his power as President. My last blog post exposed obama as a FRAUD who actually explains why he is a fraud because of the senate resolution that declared Mccain a natural born citizen. This document is public knowledge and is solid evidence obama is a total FRAUD) Story Reports
Army combat unit to deploy within U.S.
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1
Monday, April 12, 2010
Barry Soetoro a.k.a. Barack Obama Exposed
All the statements on this video are true. The documents are real. Barack hussein obama's real name is barry soetoro.
Also before obama was nominated he signed a senate resolution describing himself as ineligible to be president.
Obama admits he is a FRAUD by signing senate resolution
"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
[The US Senate proclaimed that John Mccain was a natural born citizen because he was born to Americans citizens, {PLURAL}, citizens means his father and mother were American citizens. S. RES. 511 Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. OBAMA signed a senate resolution that declared what a natural born citizen is. Obama agreed that a natural born citizen must have both parents as US citizens at the time of birth.
Obama only has one parent that was a US citizen at the time of his birth, his mother.
This is a signed senate document, S. RES. 511, that obama cosponsored.
Obama became an imposter for president the day he entered the state primary for president.
Obama became a FRAUD the day he entered the presidential primaries because he had previously cosponsored and signed a resolution, S. RES. 511, stating a natural born citizen must be born of two US citizens at birth.
This is real evidence that cannot be refuted.
Obama in effect defined what the US Constituiton says about a natural born citizen. S. RES. 511 is obama's statement of what a natural born citizen is. If obama believes his own resolution he knows for a fact he is not a natural born citizen but a FRAUD!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other side of the "obama coin" is the fact barry obama was a dual citizen at birth. His mother an American his father Kenyan. This means he was not a natural born citizen at birth. Obama is a fraud president. The DNC certified him in all 50 states as qualified under the Constitution of the US. The in your face evidence has been produced by barry obama himself when he declared he was a kenyan citizen until age 23 on his web site. He is saying i'm an IMPOSTER!
People argue what is a natural born citizen? People are not informed.
A natural born citizen only matters if you are nominated and elected president.
Many US citizens are natural born citizens. Many US citizens are not.
Many US citizens a native born and some are naturalized.
The US Constitution does not specifically say what a natural born citizen is.
The framers of the Constitution did however make it very evident what a natural born citizen is.
World Net Daily Exclusive: “Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace”.
.........................................................................................
What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?
(REMEMBER OBAMA HAS ANSWERED AND SETTLED THIS QUESTION IN HIS COSPONSORED SENATE RESOLUTION S. RES. 511 110th CONGRESS 2D SESSION)
Obama admits he is a FRAUD by signing senate resolution
.........................................................................................
What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?
by John Greschak
The Framers of the United States Constitution specified the following criteria that one must meet in order to be eligible to be President (in Section 1 of Article II):
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
What is meant by the phrase natural born Citizen in this context? Specifically, what attributes must a United States Citizen have in order to be considered natural born?
Factors employed (explicitly or implicitly) in the United States Constitution to gauge the degree to which one belongs to the United States:
# Whether or not one was born in the United States.
# Whether or not one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
# The number of years one has been a Citizen of the United States.
# Whether or not one's place of domicile is in the United States.
# The total number of years one has lived in the United States.
# Whether or not one is a member of a specified category of Citizens.
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions. A given person is a natural born Citizen of the United States if and only if:
1. The person was born in the United States,
2. Both parents of the person were Citizens of the United States when that person was born, and
3. The person has been a Citizen of the United States, since birth.
(Note: Here, and in the United States Constitution, the phrase Citizen of the United States means a person domiciled in the United States, for whom rights, privileges and immunities are set forth in the United States Constitution.)
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
I was told today that 70% of people opposed to obama are racists. I asked him are 70% of 59,934,814 who voted for Mccain and opposed obama racists? He said yes. That would mean 41,954,369 are racists and the 69,456,897 who voted for obama are not. It is a ignorant man's way of making an excuse for a man who can't prove he is a natural born citizen. If you describe someone as ignorant, you mean that they do not know things they should know. If someone is ignorant of a fact, they do not know it. (Story Reports)
.........................................................................................
This same man, who in effect called me a racist, said no one could define what a natural born citizen is. I can, here is your answer. Read my explanation below and understand why Barack H. Obama is an IMPOSTER and FRAUD according to the US Constituion. Any and all opposition to Barack H. Obama is considered by many blacks to just be racism. Many blacks consider anyone who voices a negative opinion of Obama as automatically a racist just because obama is considered to be a black man. This is true racism because they are considering a group as thinking and acting in the same way just because they are not of the same race and oppose obama. To many blacks not being the same race as obama makes you a racist if you question or comment in a negative way about obama. This is racism used to defend the FRAUD and IMPOSTER Barack H. Obama or Barry Soetoro. This is enough to silence many people's opposition to obama for fear of being called a racist. This is how the "race card" is used to quell some opposition. Black people are not immune to racism just because they are black. If any black person plays the race card on anyone other than their race when a correct and true negative comment is made about obama it is a ignorant racist trying to stop your freedom of speech. Obama is a liar and FRAUD. There is nothing racist in my true statement.(Story Reports)
.........................................................................................
If you really want to know what a natural born citizen is you must take the time to understand what the phrase means. Remember the phrase "No Person except a natural born Citizen" has any meaning except for the election of a US president. The phase, "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" must be understood also. These two references mean different things. If they did not there would have been not been any need to make the distinction in the US Constitution. The framers knew they were not "natural born citizens" because their parents likely were not American citizens at the time of their birth. Hence the phrase, "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". Some of the framers of the US Constitution were just citizens of the US. That is American citizens, not a natural born citizens. Some of the framers had parents who were not US citizens at when they were born. THIS IS WHY THE PHASE, "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" was added. They "grandfathered" themselves into the US Constitution as a one time exception. A grandfather clause is an exception that allows an old rule to continue to apply to some existing situations, when a new rule will apply to all future situations. The "new rule" is that all future US presidents must be natural born citizens. This is citizens that were born to parents that did not have dual citizenships. A citizen born to dual citizenship parents would mean the offspring would have a dual citizenship or allegiance to a foreign country at birth. They did not want a citizen to be influenced by another foreign power because of dual citizenship. This is in the Constitution for this reason. Story Reports
Barack H. Obama is not an exception to the US Constitution. He was born to parents who had dual citizenships. His mother an American and his father a Kenyan. Obama was a dual citizen at birth not a natural born citizen as the US Constitution requires. Because of this obama is a FRAUD president that should have never been nominated for president. Story Reports
What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?
World Net Daily Exclusive: “Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace”.
Before obama was nominated he signed a resolution describing himself as ineligible to be president
Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a notarized sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America,
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Obama is a traitor as are all in congress who support obama. Barney frank leads the way.
Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s, so did Frank’s partner, herb moses, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.
Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.
"I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover."
The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."
The biggest villain in the whole financial meltdown isn't the "private sector," as some in Congress — like Rep. Frank — have tried to claim. It's Congress itself, and barney frank. Govenment influenced wallstreet to go bust. Barney frank played the race card when he was warned feddie mac and fannie mae were about to go bust. His "boyfriend" at the time was over freedie mac. While barney was groping, congress was requiring banks to make bad loans. Barney and the democrates created the manufactured financial crisis. Yes it was barney gay boy frank and his fellow democrates that pushed the economic system over the edge. Democrates created a crisis that obama would not let go to waste. Barney set America up for a fall so the FRAUD obama could appear to solve a manufactured crisis by pushing the US in debt. This was a cover to make the US economic system collapse. Obama and the democrates could claim they did their best to solve the crisis they created by spending the US into economic destruction. Obama and all his fellow comrades have a plan to destroy capitalism. It is working. Obama is a traitor as are all in congress who support obama. Americans must fight for their freedoms. Domestic enemies have taken over the federal government in the form of elected "officials" who are ruling and not responsive to the people as "elected" officials. Story Reports
........................................................................................
Greenspan implied it was Congress' meddling incompetence — not the Fed, or free markets, or greedy bankers — that created the financial meltdown
Regulation:
Sometimes, long after their public careers are done, those once in power speak openly about the past. Like Alan Greenspan, who on Wednesday told Congress what he could never tell them while in office.
Testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the former Fed chairman told some plain truths he didn't dare utter when he headed the central bank. Most notably, Greenspan implied it was Congress' meddling incompetence — not the Fed, or free markets, or greedy bankers — that created the financial meltdown.
"If the Fed as a regulator had tried to thwart what everyone perceived as a fairly broad consensus that the trend was in the right direction, homeownership was rising and that was an unmitigated good, then Congress would have clamped down on us," he said.
That, of course, is dead right. But the maestro wasn't finished.
"There's a presumption that the Federal Reserve's an independent agency, and it is up to a point, but we are a creature of Congress and if ... we had said we're running into a bubble and we need to retrench, the Congress would say 'we haven't a clue what you're talking about,'" he said.
Indeed, that's precisely what happened.
Yes, the Fed may have kept interest rates too low for too long in the middle of this decade. But it also might be true that it had no other real choice — given the sluggish recovery following the 2000 stock market meltdown, the 2001 recession and the 9/11 attacks.
Regardless, it wasn't the Fed that caused the housing crash and financial meltdown. It was Congress and the White House.
(Yes bush is also to blame. He could have done more to stop the fed I believe. Only congress could have made the fed, fannie mae, feddie mac be responsible. Congress let the crisis be created when congress under the control of the democrates could have stopped the comming meltdown. Congress wanted to create the manufactured crisis. The democratic congress would do anything to stay in power.) Story Reports
The mess began in the 1970s when, during the Carter administration, left-wing activists attacked banks for supposed "redlining" practices that let them discriminate in making home loans.
In response, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which gave regulators the power to force banks to lend money to "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods."
To fund all this new lending, they used two little-known government-sponsored enterprises — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — and essentially rewrote credit standards for the banks, weakening them substantially. Banks made loans, then Fannie and Freddie bought them — using borrowed money to do it.
In this environment, credit ratings no longer mattered much. Neither did having a job or a steady income. What mattered was race.
The process got supercharged in 1992, when a Democrat-led Congress pushed Fannie and Freddie to buy even more mortgages from banks that had made loans to low-income and minority buyers. In 1996, President Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development told Fannie and Freddie that 42% of their financing had to go to those with incomes below the median.
By 2000, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo proudly unveiled "new regulations" to "provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." Despite subsequent efforts at reform, Democrats in Congress — led by Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank — rejected major changes to Fannie and Freddie.
(Yes dodd and frank were responsible for not changing the policies of fannie and freddie. Their democrate leader bill clinton didn't try to do anything to curtail the wild, crazy, insane policy of making loans to people who could not afford them. He added fuel to the fire just like "butt buddy" barney frank did. Congress ignored the warnings. These two bums added even more fuel to the manufactured crisis. The DEMOCRATES CREATED THE MANUFACTUTED FINANCIAL CRISIS! The democrates are still manufacturing the "FINANCIAL CRISIS." Reagan said, "In this time of financial crisis it is not the government that is the answer it is the government that is the problem" Reagan was correct. The manufactured democratic congress created a massive slush fund to be used for their own reelection. This is the dirty little secret.) Story Reports
We're still paying for that today. Fannie and Freddie have gotten a blank check from the government for their losses, and still owe more than $5 trillion that they can't pay off.
We've been critical of Greenspan in the past, but on this, he's completely right. The biggest villain in the whole financial meltdown isn't the "private sector," as some in Congress — like Rep. Frank — have tried to claim. It's Congress itself, UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEMOCRATES.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
