AL Supreme Court To Rule On Obama’s Failure To Register With Selective Service

[bsteadman]

Report: AL Supreme Court To Rule On Obama’s Failure To Register With Selective Service

Birther Report
9/22/2013

Excerpt:

Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service
By George Spelvin @ Coach Is Right

Next Friday, at or before 11:30 a.m. CST, the decision on oral argument in the Barack Obama eligibility case now under deliberation in the Alabama Supreme Court could come down. You can call Clerk Julia Weller’s office at # 334-229-0700, but you must ask for this case or you will not receive an answer. Ask for status results in the “Hugh McInnish, Virgil Goode v. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State.” Every Friday morning before noon Clerk Weller receives her Friday document release in cases in front of the nine member Alabama Supreme Court. Additionally, you could also call new Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett at 1-800-274-8683 or # 334-242-7200. They may have something for you.

This case is being brought by high ranking, Alabama Republicans Hugh McInnish and Virgil Goode with the lead appellant L. Dean Johnson asking the court to determine if then Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to properly verify that all candidates on the 2012 election ballots in Alabama were eligible to serve. The 2012 Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode and AL Republican leader Hugh McInnish are seeking resolution and/or clarity on just who can appear on ballots given to Alabama voters. Beth Chapman quit her elected position at the end of July and former Secretary of State Jim Bennett, a long time political figure in Alabama, is now back as the state’s 52nd Sec of State as of 7-31-2013. Chapman, age 51, resigned and is now a political consultant with the AL Farmers Federation as a paid consultant seeking out political candidates for this organization’s backing.

Fraud Attorney W.L. Albert Moore, Jr., no relation to Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, filed an Amicus Curiae brief in this case seeking clarity on whether or not sitting President Barack Hussein Obama in fact lost his US citizenship allegedly in or around 1980 when he failed to register with the Selective Service draft as required by U.S. law. (1) Deliberations here in the Friend of the Court filing involve whether or not Barry Soetoro-Barack Hussein Obama repatriated after being adopted by Stanley Ann Dunham’s second husband, Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, sometime prior to the lost 1/2 year decade of 1980-1985. Islamic Indonesia required students enrolling in their school system to be citizens of that country according to web data which may or may not speak to what is going on here. As Attorney Moore told CiR, absent epithelial evidence ordered by a grand jury, we just may never know what is going on.

Now, a web reproduced Selective Service picture shows the following: ” Selective Service System small numbers 08, large numbers 970, small Cap S, then small 06, then large 32.” (2) Other numbers on the form include “080161, Jul 29 80 with a crop at the top of letters 8 0.” Then we have July 30,”. .?? mumble, mumble. Some blogs state that Selective Service won’t release this form any more. Other commenters and posters say something may or may not come down from this federal agency.

Of course, the largest amount of online angst and conjecture has centered on what is meant by “natural born citizen.” But what if, as Attorney Moore’s brief submits, the citizenship issue is the real problem? What if the American people are just left to keep twisting in the wind as legal mumbo jumbo is equivocated. No member of Congress is willing to investigate and with SCOTUS tossing this hot potato out of their doors, where are the American people in all of it? A Georgia judge last year seemed willing to bring the case to courtroom definition, but abruptly he, too, tossed the case. CiR found out that within the week that he bunted, the long rejected nuclear facility in that state somehow was given the go ahead, freeing up huge amounts of federal construction dollars!

SOURCES:
(1) http://www.coachisright.com/barack-o...ctive-service…
(2) http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...st-his-us.html

Source link. Previous reports here: http://www.coachisright.com/?s=George+Spelvin - Hat tip Joe Mannix.


REALITY:

PENALTIES FOR FAILING TO REGISTER FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE

Penalties for failing to register for Selective Service may include fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment up to five years. These penalties are unlikely to be enforced, but failing to register could also make you ineligible for federal student financial aid, federal employment, job training, or U.S. naturalization. Certain states may also bar student aid or government employment for failure to register with Selective Service. - Source.

View the complete Birther Report presentation at:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...o-rule-on.html

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service', which was started 9/22/2013 by 'Oldpuppymax'

The thread references a 9/22/2013 Coach is Right article written by George Spelvin - http://www.coachisright.com/alabama-...ctive-service/

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../3069919/posts

Excerpts:

To: TomGuy

FEC only does money. And when questions arose regarding foreign campaign contributions for Obama the FEC refused to investigate because they said the winner gets to choose his battles. IOW, as long as it appears you’ve won you’ve got a free ticket. We have NOBODY looking out for whether laws and rules are being broken.

But it is the Secretary of State in each state which determines who can be on their ballot. Most states say that only eligible candidates can run for the office they seek.

In the case of AL SOS BEth Chapman, she received a certified-mail letter from Larry Klayman explaining that HI state registrar Alvin Onaka had been asked point-blank to verify Obama’s birth facts and would not, which means that those facts are not claimed on a legally-valid BC. Because Onaka did say that the facts requested to be verified WERE claimed on the record they have, the only reason to refuse to verify them is because the record they have is not legally valid. Without a legally valid record, there is no way that Antonio Villagairosa and Alice Travis Germond could LAWFULLY swear on the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination that Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the position of POTUS. Nobody can know that without first getting a judicial ruling on the probative value of that non-valid record, because without a probative record there are no legally-established birth facts.

IOW, Chapman was notified, in advance of the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot, that the HI state registrar had effectively confirmed that Obama has no legally-valid HI birth record so his eligibility could not be known without a legal investigation. She knew that the DNC OCON was fraudulent. A person who has that knowledge has a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY, by virtue of her oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, to raise the alarm - just as surely as if she knew a masked bandit was breaking into the White House to steal everything there. Failure to respond makes her an ACCOMPLICE to the crime.

The Congressional Research Service put out a paper to the members of Congress basically saying that it is up to the states to determine who goes on their ballot. If the AL Supreme Court rules that it is nobody’s business if the SOS ignores screaming red flags and legal challenges in order to place a likely-ineligible candidate on the ballot, then the system itself has said that the country has NO LEGAL PROTECTION against a usurper. None. There is NOBODY who can be required to safeguard the Constitution.

BEnghazi was terrible. A lie was knowingly passed off as an explanation so that nobody would/could investigate what really happened. We’d all like to know who knew what, and when. Well..... every SOS in this country had advance warning that a guy who has no legal documentation of eligibility was trying to enter our White House. If the courts say it is nobody’s business - ever - then they may as well go spit on the graves of the Benghazi victims too, because they’re saying NONE OF THIS - NOTHING THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DO - is any of our business, and there is nothing we can do when they screw us all in full sight of everyone.

If this doesn’t matter, then nothing matters. It’s really that simple. If we have no way to MAKE our elected officials obey the laws and keep their oaths, then we may as well not have any laws or oaths. Period. Are you ready to go there?

21 posted on Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:15:15 PM by butterdezillion (,)

---

To: elengr

The courts have denied standing to state electors. It’s “not their business”.

According to the system, the only person who is harmed by an ineligible person on the ballot is the person who would have become President if the ineligible one hadn’t been on the ballot. Never mind that nobody can know that unless an election is actually conducted without them on the ballot...

It’s the “crystal ball” method of practicing law. In Iran and other sharia-controlled areas they call it “judge’s knowledge”. It’s just another way of saying rule by men, not by laws.

That’s really what is at stake with this issue and every other lawless act by this illegal regime. Until somebody actually rules that it IS our business when our government engages in criminal behavior, we are ruled by men, not by laws, and there are no guarantees of any kind.

24 posted on Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:29:41 PM by butterdezillion (,)

---

To: butterdezillion

Laws are for the common folk.

Since our phones are trapped and emails read, and cameras are all around us, and laws only apply to the people, isn’t it about time that we admit we live in a tyranny.

28 posted on Sunday, September 22, 2013 6:04:20 PM by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.")

CONTINUED in the following reply

[bsteadman]

CONTINUED from above

To: CpnHook

The word “indicating” only means that is what is claimed on the record. The only thing that Onaka actually VERIFIES there is the existence of a birth record which claims a Hawaii birth. That would be true even if the BC claiming it is not valid, so that verification statement says nothing about the validity of the record or the truth of those claims.

And when you look at Bennett’s entire request - including the actual APPLICATION FORM - you realize that the BC they have CAN’T be valid because if it was, Onaka would have had to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, WAS born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, since those are the facts requested to be verified

Any claim made on a legally valid record is legally presumed to be true and MUST be verified (certifying that is the way the event really happened) when a qualified requestor submits it for verification. Onaka would not verify the truth of ANY fact submitted on the application form.

Nor would he verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.” Later, when KS SOS Kris Kobach specifically asked him to verify that the information contained in the White House image is IDENTICAL to the information contained in the record on file, Onaka would not verify that either. The INFORMATION on the White House image “matches” but is not identical.

All this was explained to Chapman. In fact, you can see the letter that Klayman sent to Chapman, at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpre...r-to-bauer.pdf It shows the applicable statutes and documents.

When AZ SOS Bennett was asked why Onaka didn’t verify the birth date he said he assumed it was a mistake. He assumed that the certification he received was not accurate. He allowed Obama on the ballot based on the assumption that Onaka really MEANT to say something other than what he really said. He didn’t ask for clarification. Without any evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity (accuracy of the record given to him), he presumed that the certification he received was wrong.

Is that really how our legal system works in the USA? We ask point-blank and when the answer given under oath doesn’t match what we think it should be we assume - without evidence of any kind - that we know better than the custodian of the record, testifying under oath?

Is that how you think it should be? Do you want the AL Supreme Court to say that’s a fine way of doing legal business here in the USA?

37 posted on Sunday, September 22, 2013 11:01:17 PM by butterdezillion (,)

---

o did not register with Selective Service or obtain a waiver from registration.

As a person born in 1961, if Obama did not register with Selective Service in 1980, then voters would have questioned his eligibility. Consequently, there is motive to forge a registration card. If Obama waited until he was 21 years old to register, then voters may demand a full explanation as to why he waited. If Obama obtained a waiver from registration, then voter may have question why he obtained a waiver. If it is established Obama did not register because he was a foreigner attending a U.S. School on a student visa in 1980, then his eligibility to be on the Alabama ballot would have been jeopardized.

44 posted on Monday, September 23, 2013 1:11:02 AM by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.) [/I]

---

To: CpnHook

The problem is that the disclosure law in Hawaii says that registrar has to verify the facts “as stated by the applicant.” This means he can’t substitute other terms on an assumption some words are synonymous with others. In the Arizona Letter of Verification, the secretary of state asked if the copy was a true copy, not an identical copy. Hawaii refused to verify this fact. And this is a fact that the state registrar has the authority to verify. It’s why he puts a seal and signature stamp that certifies whether a record is a true copy of a birth record. There’s a reason this is important. The Federal Rules of Evidence considers such documents to be self-authenticating if the custodian of the record can attest the record is a CORRECT copy. Hawaii did NOT do this. They also failed to verify several specific facts contained on their own standard request form. The Kansas Secretary of State requested his own letter because the language in the Arizona and Mississippi letters were not compelling. He asked specifically if the copy was identical. Under the law in Hawaii, the registrar is supposed to verify that fact as stated by the applicant, not by using synonymous language or with a partial verification of facts. Saying that they contain a record with matching information does not verify that the record is identical. It may suggest that it might be identical, but it is NOT a verification that complies with the law “as stated by the applicant.”

46 posted on Monday, September 23, 2013 1:38:20 AM by edge919