Announcement

**bsteadman** · 01-12-2013, 08:36 PM

Supreme Court to hear case on Obama's alleged forged documents (Photos)

Examiner
Marv Dumon, Republican Examiner
1/10/2013

Excerpt:

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9.

As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court's decision to review Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.

On Feb. 15, all nine justices will gather in conference to review whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void.

The Supreme Court's website shows that docket file no. 12A606 was originally denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, on Dec. 13. On Jan. 9, Chief Justice Roberts sent Dr. Taitz's application to the full court for a review scheduled for Feb. 15.

Despite the lack of exposure from the mainstream media, the issue appears to have gained some steam among conservative bloggers. On Jan. 9, New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi suggested that the president's nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, may have played a role in removing birther evidence from Barack Obama's passport records.

It appears that in 2008, a State Department insider was simultaneously employed by Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va. (then headed by Mr. Brennan) and was reprimanded for accessing (and possibly altering) Obama's passport records.

On Wednesday, Dr. Orly Taitz, who represents the birther cause, posted the following on her website:

The case . . . provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-xx-xxxx which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.

The Supreme Court reviews about 10,000 petitions annually in regular conferences. About 100 are selected for further judicial consideration. In this filtering process, the votes of four justices are needed to advance a case. On her website, Dr. Taitz argues that Obama has used false identification, an alias, a fake Social Security number, forged birth certificates and Selective Service applications....

Among the aliases Obama allegedly used are Barry Soetoro (used while teaching law at the University of Chicago) and Harrison J. Bounel. Birthers contend that by entering Obama's claimed Social Security number (042-xx-xxxx) into background check systems, the name Harrison J. Bounel shows up in search results. Forgery of government documents is considered a felony.

This is not the first time that Obama has had to contend with the birther issue. On Aug. 21 2008, Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to become president. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and that the "Certification of Live Birth" on Obama's website is a forgery.

The lower federal court dismissed the complaint as "unworthy of further discussion". Soon after, Berg filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was denied by Justice David Souter in Nov. 2008. A second petition was denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A third petition was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the high court rejected the writ of certiorari on Jan. 12, 2009, just eight days away from Obama's first inauguration as the nation's 44th chief executive.

A team of forensic experts organized by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio have looked into Obama's birth certificate. In July 2012, Arpaio told Fox News his team's conclusion that Obama's birth certification is "definitely fraudulent". After months of investigation, his forensic investigators had discovered code errors, computer-generated marks, and manipulated seals on the document.
.........................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.examiner.com/article/supr...rged-documents

**bsteadman** · 01-12-2013, 08:41 PM

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Supreme Court to hear case on Obama's alleged forged documents (Photos)', which was started 1/11/2013 by 'voicereason'

The thread references a 1/10/2013 Examiner article written by Marc Dumon - http://www.examiner.com/article/supr...rged-documents

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2977027/posts

The following is COMMENT #41, by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

This brings something else to mind. Remember when “Lucas Smith” sent via certified mail affidavits to all the members of Congress containing the particular proofs he offered up of having gotten Obama’s birth certificate from a hospital in Mombasa? - (bold and color emphasis added)

According to the assistant at Rep Adrian Smith’s office, the House has a rule that anything from a non-constituent has to be forwarded to that person’s representative.

IOW, all the certified mail that “Lucas Smith” sent ended up in the offices of 3 people - the 2 senators and one representative who represent him.

Thousands of dollars’ worth. None of them would even look at it. The ONLY way the House rules allow these critters to get information is by the threatened media. The rules establish a monopoly, because if you or I tried to tell OUR critters about “Lucas Smith” and his evidence, they would dismiss it as “mere hearsay”. Every state would have to have somebody go to Kenya and bribe the hospital worker into getting a copy of a birth certificate, in order for our critters to even HEAR about any of this.

I haven’t seen “Lucas Smith”’s affidavit so I have no idea of the credibility of his claims. But the idea that the information cannot even get through to these people is suicidal for this country. The system is rigged to ensure that the critters are controlled by the Soros-owned media.

The following is COMMENT #59, by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

SCOTUS decides questions of FACT and law.

There is no way to determine questions of law without first determining questions of FACT, and Hawaii has revealed that Obama’s Hawaii BC is non-valid and thus his birth facts can only be determined by a procedure presided over by a judge, in which that non-valid BC is presented as evidence.

The facts upon which eligibility depends are expressly forbidden to be determined by Congress, which is legislative.

And even state Secretaries of State cannot determine any birth facts for Obama without having the non-valid BC presented as evidence. If the SOS’s had POLICIES for doing that, it should have happened by now and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

And the Constitution says that even if the states and Congress are done with their entire involvement in the process of choosing a President, that President-elect can STILL “fail to qualify” by Jan 20th. So the 20th Amendment is EXPLICIT in saying that “qualifying” means more than simply meeting state and Congressional requirements to get elected.

The Constitution says that no one can be President if they are not old enough, not a natural born US citizen, or have not resided in the US long enough. Hawaii says that Obama has not proven any of those things and that the legal presumption is that the claims on his HI BC are NOT true. It CANNOT be legally presumed that he is old enough. It CANNOT be legally presumed that he was born in Hawaii. The burden of proof falls on Obama now because his BC is not legally credible according to HAWAII’s standards (and that’s saying a LOT, given Hawaii’s lax requirements!!!) What we know is that he has NOT adequately made his legal case for a Hawaii birth, because Hawaii cannot presume that anything claimed on his BC is true. Legally speaking, all we know is that we know nothing about Obama’s true birth facts at this point - and can’t until all the records are audited according to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Which requires a judicial or administrative procedure that we KNOW has not happened yet.

Announcement

SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts Forwards Obama Eligibility Challenge For Review

SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts Forwards Obama Eligibility Challenge For Review

Comment

Comment