Shock and Odd: The Experts Say; Vital Records Indicate Obama Not Born Hawaii Hospital

Shock and Odd: Vital Records Indicate Obama Not Born Hawaii

VITAL RECORDS INDICATE OBAMA NOT BORN IN HAWAII HOSPITAL (PART 2)

By Penbrook Johannson and Dan Crosby @ The Daily Pen

SHOCK AND ODD –Along with previous evidence proving the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on the internet in April, 2011 was digitally fabricated, we reveal powerful new evidence which shows that data contained on the document contradicts Obama’s birth narrative and vital statistical accounting methods used at the alleged time of his birth. Vast disparities between the natal information appearing in the image and the standard methods used by federal and municipal governments to code, identify and report the contents of U.S. vital records prove that Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth record was assembled to intentionally obscure the truth about his natal biography.

NEW YORK, NY – An intensive examination of the contents of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” image by the most respected experts in vital records accounting and identity investigation reveals that much of the contrived information about his alleged Hawaiian birth simply renders his Natural-born status impossible.

In cooperation with former members of the Social Security Administration’s Records and Claims Investigation office, along with information provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), this installment of our report reveals evidence, for the first time, which shows the content of Obama’s document image was hastily and recently manufactured by criminal counterfeiters secretly working in collaboration with both the White House and the municipal government of the State of Hawaii.

Most importantly, the actual data found in the document image reveals that Obama’s natal history is in direct, and even absurd, conflict with historical precedents defining citizenry, demographics and birth metrics as well as protocols governing vital statistics accounting while exposing epic deceptions on a scale never before seen in American political history.

Aside from the contextual contradictions revealed by Obama's alleged 1961 birth records, it can never be dismissed that, according to centuries of legal and doctrinal precedence, the fact that Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth forever disqualifies him from ever being eligible to hold the office of president unless the Constitution were to have been legally changed prior to his presidency.


The best way to define a natural-born citizen is not so much by what it is, but what it isn't. A natural-born citizen is one born of geographic and biological circumstances, and to have remained under those citizenship metrics from birth to election, which make it impossible for any authority or public perception to consider him or her allied with any status other than naturally-born as a citizen of that nation.


Being born in a geographic location which is under the protection of the U.S. Constitution to two citizen parents are two of the three major components of natural-born citizenship according to historical authority defining the term. The third requirement of natural-born citizenship is continuity of that status without renouncement, voluntary or not, by expatriation, extradition or adoption to foreign parents.


These metrics were not made to hurt the feelings of those not qualified. They were intended to protect the sovereignty of the United States of America and its Constitutional rights through ensuring, to the highest possible degree, the allegiances of its executive powers. For, only the executive branch is led by one.


Failure to understand this is tantamount to willful ignorance and inferior understanding of the reason why American remains the greatest santuary of freedom and protection in world history.


INTRODUCTION

The evolution of methods used to collect, prepare and report vital statistics must be carefully examined in order to understand how Obama exploited Hawaiian culture and its municipality to become America’s first ineligible president.

Vital statistics reporting methods fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health, Center for Disease Control, Census Bureau and multiple branch agencies in public health monitoring. This federal cacophony of bureaucracy works in collaboration with the state health municipalities in each state and U.S. territories to manage the nations vital records and statistics standards.

Vital records are implemented without concern for defining the citizenship status of the subjects on the vital records. Regulations governing the collection and reporting of vital statistics are purposed for improving accuracy, timeliness and availability of vital statistics data to be used for public health services, disease prevention and population.

Most certainly, vital records and statistics were never intended to be used as evidence for determining the eligibility of individuals to hold public office. The information contained in them does not provide an accurate portrayal of the specific natal circumstances, biographical events and geographic indicators required for determining Natural-born citizenry. Vital records simply are not qualified for making such determinations, but in the absence of other vetting resources and effort by authorities, they serve as a starting point for investigation.

Since some have chosen to elicit validation from the absurdity of internet images of alleged 50-year-old birth records, without so much as questioning their authenticity or origins, to determine a previously obscure politician’s eligibility to hold the most powerful and dangerous position in the world, they get what they deserve in their failure to demand a higher vetting standard.

Not only has the American public descended to new depths of endemic irrationality over Obama’s alleged birth records, the complex world of vital records and statistics has been breached to reveal some of the most bizarre protocols and complex logistics of any municipal service.

Tragically, so many remain willing to accept an ambiguous, uncorroborated image of an alleged document posted to the most corruptible and unreliable source of mythology in history, the internet, as the holy grail of some politician’s legitimacy to hold the greatest executive and military power on earth.

OBAMA’S STATISTICAL CONTRADICTIONS

According to the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Vol.1: Natality (VSUS Report), Hawaii’s 1961 birth statistics were tabulated by the National Vital Statistics office from microfilm copies of the certificates provided by the State of Hawaii’s main Vital Records office in Honolulu.

The records were organized by the main Hawaiian Vital Records office in order of “regional” sequence according to the alphabetical order of the five counties and two metropolitan areas in which the birth record was originated, not where the birth occurred. They were then assembled into “blocks” of 20 records and microfilmed.

Upon delivery to the NCHS, the data was transcribed by personnel and then manually “punched” onto cards prior to their insertion into a card-reader where the data was stored on magnetic tape in a 150+ digit string of code numbers for each record, each digit specifying a distinctive piece of data on the certificate accounting for birth metrics, demographics, age, location, parentage, health statistics, etc.

In successive years, according to the U.S. Vital Statistics System guide, beginning in 1962, the NCHS evolved to electronic data allowing each state to place the records on magnetic tape themselves as the preferred media for delivery of birth data. Computer processing and software media began to be used in the early 1980s.

In 1961, the NCHS stored birth statistics in “blocks” of 20 records on magnetic tape based on a 50-percent sample of even-numbered certificates only. This fact raises doubts about the authenticity of Obama’s alleged certificate given its alleged odd number and yet it contains preliminary codes scribed in the margins of the item entry spaces.

Pencil marks indicate Obama's certificate was prepared for coding and statistical tabulation.

Data found in the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” demonstrates the disparity between the documented evidence about his birth facts and the propaganda supporting his claim to natural-born citizenship as well as America’s first so-called "black" president.

According to the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual (VSIM) Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” reveals that he is actually not America’s first “black” president. In fact, by vital statistics reporting standards, he is not even bi-racial. This is significant not to the issue of his race, but to the accuracy of the information on the image in comparison to his widely accepted birth narrative, in general.

Demographic coding of the information as it is stated on the image causes him to be classified as “white”, not “black”, contrary to what media propaganda has tried to convince us. Vital statistics reporting protocols state that a child’s race is classified by the race of the parents with consideration given in the following priority.

1. If the race of both parents is coded the same, the child is that race, as well.
2. If one parent is classified as white (Code 1) and the other is classified as one of codes 0 or 2 through 8, then the child’s race is also classified as one of the classification codes found in 0 or 2 through 8.
3. The child’s race is classified by the father’s race unless the father’s race code is 9, which means “Not stated” or “not classifiable”, then the child’s race is classified by the mother’s race.

Race codes for reporting the mother’s and father’s race on the standard Certificate of Live Birth in 1961 were the same codes and were as follows:

Recall, Obama’s father’s race is shown as “African” which does not appear in the “Detail Race of Father” table as a classifiable race according the NCHS. It is coded as a number 9 which is “Not Stated”. Therefore Obama’s race is based on his mother’s, not his father’s, by federal law. We know the vital statistics of Obama’s father’s race was recorded using this code because within the margins of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” there are preliminary coding marks written in pencil as prescribed by the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for 1961 reporting. Obama’s certificate has the number “9” scribed in the margin of the item for his father’s race.

CONTINUED HERE: http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/02/vital-records-indicate-obama-not-born_29.html

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Hawaii Attorney Schools Hawaii Department of Health and Vexatious Litigant on Hawaii Law

Hawaii Attorney Schools Hawaii Department of Health

and Vexatious Litigant on Hawaii Law and Procedure

Sunahara v Fuddy(Hawaii-DOH) - Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss -

In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii - 2/28/2012

Hearing set for March 8th, 2012 at 9:30 A.M. before Judge Rhonda Nishimura

Excerpts from local Hawaii attorney Gerald Kurashima's memorandum:

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, FILED ON JANUARY 3, 2012

Plaintiff Duncan Sunahara is the natural brother of Virginia Sunahara, deceased. On or about November 22, 2011, Plaintiff requested from the State of Hawaii, Department of Health (hereafter referred to as “State”), an estimate of the cost and expense to obtain a certified copy of Virginia Sunahara’s original Certificate of Live Birth (hereafter “Birth Certificate”), pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute § 338-13(a). As stated in the Complaint, the Department of Health did not provide an estimate of the costs or provide a copy of Virginia Sunahara’s original Birth Certificate. The Department of Health had previously provided a “computer generated abstract” of Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificate. (See Abstract of Birth Certificate as Exhibit 1). However, a “computer generated abstract” is not a certified copy of an original birth certificate.

Defendant State contends that because it provided a “computer generated abstract of the birth certificate,” the Plaintiff is not entitled to a certified copy of Virginia Sunahara’s original Birth Certificate, and Plaintiff also is not entitled to “have access to that original.” (State’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 2-3).

However, HRS § 338-13(a) expressly states, “the department of health shall upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate on file in the department. . .” (Emphasis added). (See HRS § 338-13, as Exhibit 2). HAWAII RULES OF EVIDENCE, Rule 202(b) requires “mandatory judicial notice of law.” “The court shall take judicial notice of (1) the common law), (2) the constitution and statutes of the United States and of every state, territory, and other jurisdiction of the United States, . . .” (Emphasis added).

Defendant State is required to produce a copy of Virginia Sunahara’s original Birth Certificate, and not merely a “computer generated abstract” HRS § 92F-11(d) also states, “Each agency shall assure reasonable access to facilities for duplicating records. . .” The Plaintiff has sufficiently stated claims for relief which precludes dismissal or summary judgment.

-JUMP-

Defendant State and the Department of Health have not complied with the requirements of HRS § 338-13(a) merely because a “computer generated abstract” was provided to the Plaintiff. (See Abstract as Exhibit 1). Defendant State claims that, “The Director (Department of Health) has the authority to select and adopt the process of providing computer generated abstracts of vital records. . .” (Memorandum in Support, at pp. 4-5). The State relies on HRS § 338-13(c), which states, “Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.” (Emphasis added).

However, the State misinterprets this statutory provision because it merely provides the Director with discretion to choose the “method or process” of producing copies, either by “photography, dry copy, typing or computer printout.” Contrary to the State’s “interpretation,” HRS § 338-13(c) does not grant the Director any “discretion” or authority to disregard the requirements of HRS § 338-13(a) to provide a “certified copy of any certificate.” This section only grants the Director the discretion and authority to approve the “manner or process” of making copies. If the Legislature had intended to grant the Director the sole discretion of providing only a “computer generated abstract,” the Legislature would have eliminated the requirement of providing “a certified copy of any certificate,” or alternatively, the Legislature could have expressly granted the Director with similar discretion or authority as in HRS § 338-13(a), but the Legislature has not done so.

In addition, HRS § 338-13(c) cannot be construed as granting the Department of Health the sole discretion to provide a “computer generated abstract,” in lieu of a copy of a certified original Birth Certificate. This would effectively nullify the requirement of HRS § 338-13(a) of providing a “certified copy of any certificate.” HOH Corp. v. Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Bd, DCCA, 69 Haw. 135, 736 P.2d 1271 (1987) (The law has long been clear that agencies may not nullify statutes).

It is also a general rule of construction in the interpretation of a statute, “courts may not take, strike, or read anything out of a statute, or delete, subtract, or omit anything.” 73 Am Jur 2d STATUTES § 200. “[I]t is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that significance and effect should, if possible, . . . be accorded to every part of the act, including every section, paragraph, sentence or clause, phrase, and word, phrase, sentence and word.” (Emphasis added). 73 Am Jur 2d STATUTES § 250.

“When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. Moreover, it is well-settled that courts are bound to give effect to all parts of a statute, and that no clause, sentence or word shall be construed as superfluous, void, or insignificant if a construction can be legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all words of the statute.” (Emphasis added). State of Hawaii v. Magoon, 75 Haw. 164, 177, 858 P.2d 712 (1993); Hi Kai Inv. v. Aloha Futons, 84 Haw. 75, 929 P.2d 88 (1996) (The court, whenever possible, interprets every word, clause and sentence of a statute to give them effect). The Court must give effect to both HRS § 338-13(a) which requires the Department of Health to provide a “certified copy of any certificate,” and HRS § 338-13(c) which provides the Director only discretion as to the method of copying records.

3. The Department of Health Does Not Have Any Discretion to Provide a “Computer Generated Abstract,” In Lieu of a Certified Copy of an Original Certificate

Although HRS § 338-13(a) states the Department of Health is to, “furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof,” this does not grant the Department an option or discretion to provide a “computer generated abstract” instead of a certified copy of Virginia Sunahara’s original Birth Certificate. While the term “or” is normally used a disjunctive, with a choice among two or more things, Hawaii law, HRS § 1-18, expressly states, “Each of the terms ‘or’ and ‘and,’ has the meaning of the other or both.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, under HRS § 1-18, the term “or” as used in HRS § 338-13(a), is to be interpreted as “and.”

-JUMP-

CONCLUSION

Defendant State has filed this motion to dismiss pursuant to HRCP, Rule 12(b)(6), claiming that Plaintiff Duncan Sunahara has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. However, as discussed herein, Defendant State has misinterpreted the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, HRS § 338-13. The Court should find that HRS § 338-13(a) requires the Department of Health to provide Plaintiff a certified copy of the original Birth Certificate of his deceased sister, Virginia Sunahara. The Court should also find that the Department cannot meet its statutory requirement by merely providing a “computer generated abstract.” In addition, even if the “contents” of such an abstract can be “considered for all purposes, the same as the original,” is not dispositive and does not relieve the Department of its statutory duty to provide a “certified copy of any certificate.”

THE COMPLETE MEMORANDUM BELOW AND HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83139841/Sunahara-v-Fuddy-Hawaii-DOH-Plaintiff-s-Memorandum-in-Opposition-to-Defendant-s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Hawaii-First-Circuit-2-28-2012

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Sunahara v Fuddy(Hawaii-DOH) - Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Hawa...

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Natural Born Citizenship Not Defined By Birth Certificates: 8 Attempts To Remove NBC Clause

NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP NOT DEFINED BY BIRTH CERTIFICATES

Editorial by Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN

NEW YORK, NY - While preparing the second part of our investigative report on the statistical examination of the contents of the image of Obama's alleged 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth", there are a few things we need to be reminded of about this contemptible, overemphasized record.

Lt. Colonel, Dr. Terry Lakin, willingly sacrificed his unblemished 20-year military career and served prison time by rightfully refusing deployment orders when Obama refused to provide it.

Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of multiple investigative best sellers and nemesis to John Kerry’s mendacious attempt at the 2004 U.S. presidency, published yet another best seller because Obama refused to provide it.

A State of Georgia administrative law court convened a hearing over it.

Arizona law enforcement and investigative personnel are preparing to issue a formal report over it.

Before all this, Hillary Clinton “PUMA” supporters started the "birther" movement during the 2008 Primary campaign when Obama refused to provide it.

Former Philadelphia Deputy District Attorney and life-long registered Democrat, Philip Berg filed a lawsuit in August of 2008 because Obama refused to provide it.

“…Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children…in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen...”

Senate Resolution 511 affirming John McCain’s presidential eligibility was debated and unanimously passed based on a definition of natural-born parentage which his opponent did not possess, after Congressional senators refused to demand it.

Congressional representatives tried eight times to change the Constitution by removing the Natural-born citizenship clause of Article II between 2004 and 2008 when they couldn’t find it.

Former senior Hawaii elections clerk, Tim Adams, in charge of verifying voter eligibility, with access to national and international identity verification databases, as well as hospital records, was told to stop asking about it because it, apparently, didn’t exist.

Seven different reporters from four newspapers in Hawaii, and a national radio host, could not find it, yet that same media repelled inquiries for years claiming that Hawaii’s health department could not provide it.

Former director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, said she had seen it, but her boss, Hawaii governor and self proclaimed “friend” of Obama, Neil Abercrombie, as manager of that same municipality, could not find it.

Obama says that he possessed it as a teenager in the 1970s, but current Lt. governor of Hawaii, Brian Schatz, serving as the Democrat Party of Hawaii Chairman in 2008, across the street from the Hawaiian Department of Health, refused to certify Obama’s nomination as “constitutionally eligible” when he could not find it.

The Hawaiian district attorney was forced to refer a customized copy of an Official Certification of Nomination to the DNC party headquarters, headed by Nancy Pelosi, for permission to “legally” put Obama’s name on the ballot in his own state, because he couldn’t find it.

Former Hawaii election’s commission chairman, Kevin Cronin, resigned after a dispute with Schatz over eligibility documentation procedures and deadlines related to Obama’s appearance on the Hawaiian ballot in October, 2008, when he couldn’t find it.

34-year-old Schatz was suddenly elevated to his current status as the youngest Lt. Governor in Hawaii’s history without ever having served in government. Schatz’s won the election without public appearance or publicly campaigning, having filed an application for his candidacy just days before the ballot inclusion deadline, against the protests of nearly ten other long-standing democrats who suspected Schatz’ sudden ascendance to power was because he remained silent about not being able to find it.

The Hawaii Election Commission called a special session with Schatz and the attorney general along with Obama, who made an emergency trip to Hawaii to visit his sick grandmother, on October 24th, 2008, the deadline for being included on the Hawaii ballot, to discuss Obama’s eligibility, when they couldn’t find it.

Donald Trump conducted an investigation as a prospective presidential candidate, (until his television contract was renewed), but he couldn’t find it.

Then suddenly, in April, 2011, right before the release of Corsi’s book, and Lakin from prison, and Trump’s television deal, and Fukino from her position, and the 2012 presidential campaigns, an image of it suddenly appears.

Pristine and jewel-laden for the world to behold, the most conveniently absent document in American history is suffered forthwith on the most corruptible, anonymously accessible “crime scene” in human history, the internet.

When the absurdity of the image began to pressure the Obama administration to answer for its belated appearance, bizarre format and lack of authenticity, rather than uphold the “transparency touchstone” of his fraudulent presidency, he allegedly orders the end of Osama Bin Laden in a Pakistani raid and secretly disposes of the body without public confirmation or evidence while telling the world what a wonderful president he thinks he is.

Meanwhile, we learn the Pakistani government conveniently acquired top secret military technology from “wreckage” we left after the raid as compensation for that government’s cooperation in upholding Obama’s mendacious tale that Bin Laden was, in fact, alive before he released his birth certificate, and then conveniently dead after.

When the founding fathers composed the Constitution, they had no idea what a birth certificate was. They were guided by the timelessness of natural law, the laws of nature, to determine the matter of course. By these laws, America became the greatest nation in human history.

The only so-called vital records in the late 1700s were “Bills of Mortality” which listed the names of dead people and were posted by undertakers at the outer limits of villages ravaged by various epidemics such as plague and typhoid fever. The only method for recording births came from parishioners who informally documented infant christenings in the church.

The language used by the founders to write the U.S. Constitution was based in the culture of the era, just as ours is today in how we speak, write and construct our laws. Therefore, drawing nomenclature from precedence, they were forced to convey concepts of their understanding of advanced citizenry by citing natural law and highly regarded principles which were embraced by the greatest majority of the people.

WHERE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SOVEREIGNTY COMES FROM

CONTINUED HERE: http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/02/natural-born-citizenship-not-defined-by.html

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Obama's Attorney Files Motion to Dismiss: Obama Being Harassed; Ignores Natural Born Citizen

Obama's Georgia Attorney Files Motion to Dismiss: Obama Being Harassed;

Ignores Natural Born Citizen Requirement

Excerpted from Jablonski's Brief in Support of Respondent’s(Obama) Motion to Dismiss:

The appeal from the Secretary of State’s decision finding that President Obama is qualified to appear on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot is one in a long line of persistent challenges filed across the country since 2008. Not a single challenge has ever been upheld.

An effort to harass the President continues with qualification challenges filed across the country and in Georgia. Challengers ignore procedural and evidentiary requirements because their claims are without merit, based on fantasy, and offered in pursuit of a political agenda. See, for example, Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp.2d 1363, 1364 (M.D. Ga. 2009), aff’d, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. March 15, 2010) cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2830 (2009)(“When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law.”)

President Obama was a United States citizen from the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship from birth, all Constitutional qualifications have been met. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App., 2009); see, United States v. Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir., 2011). There is no basis to question the President’s citizenship or qualifications to hold office. Specially appearing before this Court, respondent show that petitioner’s actions should be dismissed as they have been in numerous cases for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, failure of service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

CONTINUED BELOW AND HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/PowellvObamaBriefinSupportofRespondentsMotiontoDismissFultonCountySuperiorCourt2-27-2012.pdf

Obama's attorney Michael Jablonski also filed a 'Reply Brief to Petitioner's Motion for Emergency Hearing'. All 6 filings by Obama's Georgia attorney here: http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Powell v Obama, Brief in Support of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Fulton County Superior Court, 2-27-2012

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg NJ to Join Pennsylvania Ballot Access Challenge Team

Constitutional Article II Expert Atty Mario Apuzzo of 

Jamesburg NJ to Join PA Ballot Access Challenge Team

Commander Charles Kerchner 

Atty Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg NJ has filed documents to the Commonwealth Court of PA to join the Kerchner/Laudenslager v Obama PA Ballot Access Challenge Team as Co-Counsel along with Atty Karen L. Kiefer of Scottdale PA.

See this prior interview for some background and information about Atty Mario Apuzzo:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/06/post-emails-exclusive-interview-with.html

You can read Atty Apuzzo’s legal and scholarly writings on Article II Section 1, the presidential eligibility clause at these links:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/collections

CONTINUED HERE: http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/constitutional-article-ii-expert-atty-mario-apuzzo-of-jamesburg-nj-to-join-pa-ballot-access-challenge-team

PENNSYLVANIA BALLOT CHALLENGE UPDATES: http://www.art2superpac.com/paballot.html

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

19 Dec 2011: Wash Times Ad - Obama SSN Fails E-Verify System - Support New Article II Super PAC Org

Obama Ballot Challenge 2012 Responds To Orly Taitz's Defamatory Statements

An Open Letter to Orly Taitz, re: Defamatory Statements

By Captain Pamela Barnett and George Miller @ Obama Ballot Challenge 2012

Ms. Taitz:

As we previously stated, you have made multiple defamatory statements about Larry Klayman and some supporters, including us, causing severe harm. We supported you for years, because you were about the only game in town, after Apuzzo and Donofrio concluded that the federal courts would not hear any argument, no matter how logical, how grounded in fact and law.

Now, there are many ballot challenges granted instant “standing” and new attorneys are joining the fight. Obama State Ballot Challenge has helped to focus attention on the challenges and facilitate activity. We do not appreciate your non-productive infighting with other patriots in the movement. In fact, you are actively and maliciously attempting to hurt our efforts, in a manner nearly indistinguishable from that of the “Obama” forces. We know that they are enjoying sitting back and watching you do their work for them.

We had stayed quiet and counseled others not to get involved in the fray with you. George tried speaking to you twice earlier and again on 2/23/12, but, you would not even allow him to complete a sentence without interrupting. But, you have crossed into libelous action, so it has come to this and now we must reluctantly speak out. It’s bad enough that you routinely attack movement patriots, but now you are damaging the efforts of one of the finest attorneys in the nation. And that is unacceptable. Unlike others you have bulldozed, we will not be so passive, especially since you have ignored letters from our attorney.

You have little or no idea what you are even talking about, flinging around allegations, slyly implying misconduct and did not make a competent, good faith effort to ascertain the truth. In any case, it is none of your business how we conduct our campaigns, since we are complying with all laws and answer any legitimate questions to donors and patriot allies. We are writing this only to document your offenses and inform the public of what is really going on.

It is obvious that you feel threatened, are jealous of any other activity in the eligibility movement, are fearful of any “competition” and believe that a dollar contributed anywhere else but to you is a dollar stolen from you.

We specifically reference some of your inflammatory, defamatory, misleading and fallacious blog postings. It is quite clear that you have an “agenda” to discredit Mr. Klayman and us. Our response to the postings is below and we have also marked up some of them in Appendix A:

- It seems as though we committed the unforgivable sin of helping to raise money for the Hatfield/Swensson Atlanta challenge and publicity/education activities. After that, you, who we were on excellent terms with, became an even worse enemy than “Obama.” More recently, we started fundraising for Larry Klayman’s planned work. The attacks only increased.

- All of your absurd “concerns” and inaccurate statements could have been avoided, simply by calling and asking before recklessly writing in your blog. Your failure to exercise due diligence prior to posting falsehoods, incomplete and one- sided information, has resulted in creating a highly misleading impression that we are dishonest, possibly taking money and failing to use it as advertised—all untrue. You also dredged up and presented only negative statements about Larry Klayman, including various defamatory statements which hold him in a false light. For instance, Klayman’s PA law license expired. He has not done any work there in two decades. He was not subjected to any disciplinary actions there. He has not been convicted of any crime and can enter cases in California pro hac vice, as you know.

- Article II PAC is not involved in collecting money for legal defense. Pamela Barnett and George Miller are no longer with Article II SuperPAC or Article II Legal Defense Fund, but we maintain a strategic alliance, since we have closely aligned goals, but different approaches and activities.

- Pamela Barnett, George Miller and Sam Sewell have never taken a penny from Article II PAC, Article II Legal Fund, or any other similar fundraising efforts. We have only paid in. I’m not aware that others you have named have taken any money either, except for a few who had legitimate expense reimbursements for travel, living and assigned activities, you know, like you take. I am informed by the Treasurer that none of that came out of the legal fund.

- ObamaBallotChallenge.com has not collected any money at all, although we have heavily promoted multiple such campaigns for others, such as Kerchner, Swensson/Hatfield, Klayman, Arpaio, you, etc.

- Klayman has never been associated with the Article II SuperPAC, but we were/are still using the Article II Legal Defense Fund to raise money for his ballot challenge efforts.

- Article II Legal Defense Fund will be sending funds to Klayman.

- RE: Taitz statement: The question is: who is lying? Was Klayman paid or not? If he was paid, than he needs to refund the donors, as he did not file law suits as he was supposed to.

No one is lying except you- or at least badly misleading unsuspecting readers of your blog. Klayman received only partial payment of his $25K retainer, but only after he had already started work on his own initiative, without the promised retainer. He should be praised, not vilified.

- We have raised funds from other sources. We have not yet received any funds from Article II Legal Defense fund.

- The 96 hour deadline you spoke of was in our initial ads, which was in fact required to enable us to engage Klayman in sufficient time to file an initial complaint. We didn’t raise the full amount in time, but were successful in getting him to graciously start some work anyway, the same day that a citizen filed a complaint, who has subsequently worked with Larry to begin modifying it to incorporate improvements. Klayman is planning strategy, researching statutes and looking for appropriate jurisdictions to file additional complaints in.

- For you to make a leap of logic that we are somehow defrauding donors, because Klayman wasn’t able to research, write and file a complaint in the four or so hours he worked before a citizen complaint was filed on 2/16 without his input– is beyond ridiculous, but quite typical of your communications style and “logic.”

- That Klayman does not have a CA license is largely irrelevant and seems designed to imply that he cannot mount any efforts here in CA. As you know, he can enter cases in California pro hac vice, and lawyers that practice nationally do so on a routine basis. No one can be licensed in all 50 states and that is why all courts allow attorneys to enter cases pro hac vice.

- Larry, the founder of Judicial Watch, has stated publicly that he left it to run for a Florida U.S. Senate seat. At least he had the good sense to focus on one thing. Running for the Senate, if seriously, is a full-time job.

- We have already explained Klayman’s response to the child support issue, grounded in law and fact, unlike your one sided presentation, which inaccurately portrayed him as a deadbeat Dad. You did not give Klayman or us any chance to respond to your misleading assertions about him and others before that on other matters, repeatedly since January. You routinely censor our postings on your site, so we have ceased trying.

- Klayman has never been convicted of anything. He has not had a license suspended or revoked. He is following the law.

- It is interesting that “Constance Ruffley” of Judicial Watch went out of her way to attend your presentation, switching topics to comment on Klayman’s involvement in the “birther” suits and his personal life (which is none of her or your business), since Judicial Watch completely blew us off when we approached them about helping. You seem to place a lot of weight on words of an office clerk with an agenda.

- The fact that multiple Article II Legal Fund ads run on ObamaBallotChallenge.com and an Obama Ballot Challenge ad runs on Art2 SuperPAC does not mean that we are each members of the other. We left to focus on the Ballot Challenges, while Article II SuperPAC will focus mainly on education and publicity on….. Article II issues. So, there is obviously potential synergy, but different missions.

- Your seemingly obsessive interest in Klayman is fascinating. It seems that you are focused on attacking Klayman and impeding his mission, when you should instead be focused on building the movement and cooperating.

- What results have you achieved in four years of taking OPM (Other peoples’ money)? All these misstatements, if not lies, or deliberate shading of the truth, are at the very least the result of your fact-finding incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to mislead your readers, not a good attribute in an attorney.

- We can’t tell people who to support, but will only say that there are now multiple attorneys working on cases, mostly ballot challenges. We advise our readers to check their track records, qualifications and achievements before making their choices. It is not Larry’s fault that we only started working with him recently and haven’t raised the agreed upon money yet. This is more attributable to a late start and justifiable disappointment of people in the legal process, especially after the initial Georgia defeat and others before that.

- Now, we must deal with an attorney (you) seemingly intent upon sabotaging the efforts of a genuine American patriot and outstanding achiever, instead of warmly welcoming him and cooperating. The Larry Klayman projects are in progress. Same is true of the Kerchner, Hatfield/Swenson and Irion efforts. And yours. The more the merrier. You know we also promoted you vigorously, but find that far more difficult now, when you keep attacking us and others.

- You need to quickly make amends by not only deleting all inaccurate and misleading material, but by posting on your blog and sending full and unqualified retractions out immediately to all of your lists. As our attorney wrote you, you have caused ongoing and severe harm. So it would behoove you and be in your best interests to commence corrective actions immediately, rather than compounding and extending your offenses. Our group has nothing to apologize for, except not raising money fast enough. We are open for business and on the cases!

We have commented on some specific passages in Orly Taitz blog postings, below. We see that you added more garbage today (2/26). We will not even address the latest one, except to say that you are in no position to be making any demands. We meet all legal requirements and answer questions of donors and allied patriots. Why don’t you try answering the same questions and further explain why you have been taking donors’ money for over 3 years with no accounting?

CONTINUED HERE: http://obamaballotchallenge.com/an-open-letter-to-orly-taitz-re-defamatory-statements

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

19 Dec 2011: Wash Times Ad - Obama SSN Fails E-Verify System - Support New Article II Super PAC Org

Fulton County Superior Court: Powell v. Obama Appeals Update And Case Chronology

APPEALS UPDATE AND CASE CHRONOLOGY

KEVIN RICHARD POWELL v. BARACK OBAMA

APPEALS UPDATE

On February 15th, my counsel J. Mark Hatfield and I filed my appeal for judicial review at the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, GA:

CASE CHRONOLOGY

Respondent Obama, on or before October 31, 2011, submitted a letter to the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of Georgia seeking to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot.

1 November 2011
Georgia Democratic Party Chairman Mike Berlon submitted, pursuant to
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193, the name of Respondent to the Georgia Secretary of State's Office as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82122225/GA-DNC-Letter-to-GA-SOS-1-Nov-2011

28 November 2011
Kevin Richard Powell Formal Complaint as Filed Monday, November 28th, 2011 with Georgia’s Office of Secretary of State.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81812503/Formal-Complaint-Filed

14 December 2011
Letter from Hatfield to Judge Malihi
This was Attorney Hatfield’s initial contact with the court informing Judge Malihi that he will be representing me and Carl before the court with some additional administrative requests.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81932702/Intitial-contact-by-Attorney-J-Mark-Hatfield-with-Judge-Malihi

15 December 2011
Judge Malihi Orders - Powell v Obama 1216823
Plaintiff's unopposed request for an extension of time for filing the pretrial order is granted.
Plaintiff's pretrial is now due on December 27, 2011.
Defendant's pretrial is due January 3, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81933229/Malihi-1216823-amp-1216218-12-15-11

15 December 2011
Powell OSAH-CE-1216823-60 Statement Undisputed Facts filed by Michael Jablonski
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81933687/Powell-OSAH-CE-1216823-60-Statement-Undisputed-Facts

CONTINUED HERE: http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2012/02/appeals-update-and-case-chronology.html

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Article II PAC Response to Orly Taitz's Continual Misrepresentations of Article II Super PAC

STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO ORLY TAITZ’S CONTINUAL MISREPRESENTATIONS 

OF ARTICLE II SUPER PAC AND ARTICLE II LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

February 24, 2012

Article II Super PAC Email

Article II Super PAC and Article II Legal Defense Fund have been under relentless, irresponsible and deceitful attack by Orly Taitz and her staff, since the two entities were established late last year. Article II Super PAC and Article II Legal Defense Fund have until now ignored her complete mischaracterization of our work. Due to her most recent misrepresentation of facts we are compelled to set the record straight once and for all.

To make it abundantly clear Article II Super PAC is a ‘political’ entity established under the rules and guidelines of the Federal Election Commission. Furthermore, all such political entities, monthly filings of income/expenses are filed with the FEC. These reports, as required by law, are made available to the public for review at the FEC website.

As well, Article II Super PAC’s mission is clearly articulated on the homepage of our official website – http://www.art2superpac.com -

“ Article II Super PAC's overall goal is to ensure that citizens and elected officials clearly understand Article II and the definitive meaning intended by the United States of America's Founding Fathers of “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” thereby working to create a legally-binding vetting apparatus which will ensure all presidential and vice-presidential candidates are constitutionally eligible in 2012 and future elections.”

“We are raising the needed resources to develop materials, to promote our message across the country, assisting with key state ballot challenges, continuing to assemble our legal team which include the brightest constitutional and elections law experts and so much more.”

“We are building a virtual army of patriots who will serve as our frontline of EDUCATORS. Be it hosting neighborhood “chats,” handing out educational materials, speaking engagements, writing letters to your hometown newspapers, or correcting misinformation with the FACTS in the blogosphere, Article II PAC is ready to put you to work.”

Article II Super PAC is gearing up for the 2012 general elections where we are currently working to elevate the debate about presidential qualifications from the netroots into the mainstream conversation. To accomplish this we have invested donor contributions into “live streaming” events such as last month’s Georgia Office of State Hearing’s and have recently teamed up with World Net Daily to “live stream” the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse Investigation into Barack H. Obama. We will continue to seek out opportunities to “live stream” events that focus on presidential qualifications and related constitutional issues. After all, it is Article II that drives our mission and work.

Article II Legal Defense Fund is a separate legal entity from Article II Super PAC. We clearly state this at both sites, but for whatever reason Taitz nor her staff bother to read.

The Article II Legal Defense Fund serves as a fundraising platform for those citizens who wish to submit a ballot challenge in their respective states and hire attorney’s who are licensed in said states. Article II Legal Defense Fund serves as a fundraising platform and depository for said funds. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It is important for citizens and donors to understand, not every ballot challenger wishes to engage the services of Taitz. Rather, they wish to seek private counsel licensed to practice law in their respective state or an attorney from out of state who they hold confidence. The Plaintiffs in California, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and several more states chose to secure counsel they wished to work with, which is their right.

As for those citizens who have engaged Mr. Klayman’s legal services that is their prerogative and Ms. Taitz should not be casting aspersions or making assumptions about that which she has no knowledge. The plaintiffs in these various ballot challenges have exercised their right to secure counsel for whom they have confidence and respect, and they should not be subjected to the incessant diatribe and insults of a frustrated and angry Ms. Taitz.

Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, Article II Legal Defense Fund reached out to the FL/CA Plaintiffs on February 23, 2012 and have received the necessary assurances that Mr. Klayman is very much involved with the Ballot Challenges both in Florida and California. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Klayman is coming on board on an existing case in Florida and Ms. Taitz would be best served by not jumping to conclusions.

As to Taitz’s claim that donors who have contributed to the CA and FL efforts are being defrauded; this is an outright falsehood and irresponsible at best. However, if the donors who have contributed to either one of these efforts wish to receive their donation back we’d gladly comply. It speaks volumes that none have. Obviously they too have full faith in the lead Plaintiffs and Mr. Klayman.

Again, Article II Legal Defense Fund simply serves as a fundraising platform and depository on behalf of citizens. It is the Plaintiffs who hire counsel, manage the private attorney-client relationship, and work out their respective legal strategy.

Perhaps Taitz would be more effective if she would concentrate more on her own efforts and spend less time making libelous statements toward those of us who are lending a hand and taking a lead to assist litigants in various states. Taitz should immediately stop injecting herself into the activities of others, especially Article II Super PAC, Article Legal Defense Fund and the CA/FL Plaintiffs. Taitz’s failure to cease and desist will only continue to hurt our common objective and will in fact necessitate a need for legal action to put and end once and for all to such scurrilous insults and claims.

The misrepresentation of facts by Taitz about who Article II Super PAC and Article II Legal Defense Fund must cease immediately. Taitz is invited to write director@art2superpac.com or call 804.840.1449 anytime. This invitation has been extended many times since we launched the PAC and LDF, but to date Taitz has chosen not to reach out and learn the facts regarding our work. However, the invitation remains open, but the misrepresentation of facts must end now.

###

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/ARTICLEIISUPERPACSTATEMENTINRESPONSETOORLYTAITZ.pdf

PAC PRESS RELEASES: http://www.art2superpac.com/pressreleases.html

UPDATE: All:

Since my name was dragged into this fray by Orly Taitz for reasons unfathomable to me since I have done nothing in the past but try to help help her since she first appeared on the scene in the late fall of 2008, even donating money to her efforts repeatedly, I am happy to set the record straight that all donations made to the Article II Legal Defense Fund - PA campaign are being sent by check regularly to my attorney who then puts it into her trust account for use in the PA action. I also receive regular weekly reports listing all donations. The Article II Super PAC and Article II Legal Defense Fund people have been totally professional, efficient, and honest in all their dealing with me and our action in PA. As to Orly attacking the Article II orgs and now me by name is totally baffling. I appreciate the support of the two Article II orgs and will continue to avail myself of their services to expose the usurper-in-chief and unconstitutional, illegal resident of the Oval Office.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff/Objector
Kerchner/Laudenslager v Obama
Pennsylvania Ballot Challenge/Objection
cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Indiana Election COMM: Obama's Mom's Records Showing Obama Surname Soebarkah Irrelevant

Indiana Election Commission Rules Obama's Mom's Passport Records

Showing Obama's Indonesian Surname Soebarkah Irrelevant

Indiana Ballot Challenge Hearing Against Obama | February 24, 2012 @ Youtube - VIDEO HERE

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/IEC_Agenda_02_24_2012A.pdf

Flashback: Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro Passport Records Released: Obama's Mama's Pre-1965 Passport Records Destroyed; New Obama Surname Soebarkah - DETAILS HERE

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Strunk v Dept of State FOIA Release - Stanley Ann Dunham,Obama,Soetoro Passport Application File - 7/29/10

19 Dec 2011: Wash Times Ad - Obama SSN Fails E-Verify System - Support New Article II Super PAC Org

Two States Move Forward Proof of Eligibility Bills for Presidential Candidates

Two States Move Forward Proof of Eligibility Bills
for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates

House Elections Committee Approves Rowland Birther Bill
Fired Up Missouri: Rep. Lyle Rowland's recycled birther bill was voted out of the House Elections Committee yesterday morning by a 7-2-1 vote. -more.

Missouri HB 1046 reads in part:
Requires proof of identity and status as a United States natural born citizen for the office of President and Vice President to be submitted with other required certification documents to the Secretary of State. http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB1046

House panel passes bill derided as 'birther' inspired
The Capital-Journal: A House committee approved a bill Wednesday requiring candidates for state and federal office to provide proof of citizenship, a reflection of the "birther" movement raising questions of President Barack Obama's status as a U.S. citizen. -more.

Kansas HB 2224 reads in part:
Within 10 days after the submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit proof that such candidates are natural born citizens of the United States by providing a document or a photocopy of such document listed in paragraphs (1) through (13) of K.S.A. 25-2309(l), and amendments thereto, to the secretary of state, or by seeking an assessment of evidence of United States citizenship by the state election board pursuant to K.S.A. 25-2309(m), and amendments thereto.

If the national political party does not submit the United States citizenship documents to the secretary of state or seek an assessment of evidence of United States citizenship by the state election board as required by this subsection, the secretary of state shall not place those candidates' names on the ballot in this state. http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/cr_2012_hb2224_h_4214.pdf

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Eligibility Report Press Conference To Be Live-Streamed Over Internet

WND TV to live-stream Arpaio eligibility report

March 1 news conference to announce findings of 1st official probe

World Net Daily

PHOENIX, Ariz. – When Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio announces the findings of the first official law-enforcement investigation into the questions surrounding Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office at a news conference Thursday, March 1, WND TV will be there to provide exclusive live-streaming, founder and editor Joseph Farah announced today.

In addition, WND will make available to the public, the same day by e-mail, the official report distributed to media by Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse.” Those interested in receiving the report can sign up for the free service between now and the March 1 press conference.

“When I took this mission on, I took it on to possibly be able to clear the president,” Arpaio said during a speech in Maricopa County. “I was doing him a favor. We’ll see what happens.”

Arpaio has kept the results of the investigation close to the vest, but suggested in a speech Tuesday that new information would be revealed.

“I don’t have press conferences just to get my name on television. When I have a press conference, I talk about something,” Arpaio said. “I had about 250 tea party people, to sign a petition . . . came to me and asked their sheriff to investigate Obama and the birth certificate. So what should I do? Throw it in the waste basket and forget it like everybody else has done?”

The comments drew applause from the crowd, which was assembled to hear both Arpaio and presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

SIGN UP NOW TO GET FREE COPY OF ARPAIO REPORT AS SOON AS IT IS DISTRIBUTED TO PRESS MARCH 1.

The WND TV live-streaming event is also made possible through the support of the Western Center for Journalism and Article II Super PAC.

Other sponsorships are welcome. Please contact marketing@wnd.com.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/wnd-tv-to-live-stream-arpaio-eligibility-report

SHERIFF JOE LIVE-STREAM VIDEO AVAILABLE HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Pennsylvania Press Conference Video: CDR Kerchner Schools Staffers; Applauded

Pennsylvania Ballot Challenge Press Conference Video: Commander Kerchner Schools Staffers; Applauded - VIDEO HERE



PREVIOUS REPORTS HERE: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/search?q=Pennsylvania+Ballot+Challenge

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama - Nomination Petition Objection Filed in the Commonwealth Court of PA i...

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Indiana Election Commission Warns Obama of Default in Ballot Hearing Set for Feb. 24th

Indiana warns Obama of eligibility 'default'

Election commission set to hear complaint

Bob Unruh @ WND

A state commission in Indiana that was asked to review whether Barack Obama is eligible to be on the state’s 2012 ballot has scheduled a hearing for Friday, and warned the parties to the argument that those who fail to attend may be subject to a default decision.

The notice was signed by Trent Deckard and J. Bradley King, co-directors of the Indiana Election Commission, and regards case No. 2012-176, which is a challenge to Obama brought by Karl Swihart.

“The hearing is called to determine the merits of the candidate challenge pursuant to Indiana Code 3-8-1-2,” the notice, addressed to Barack Obama at a Chicago address for his campaign, explains. “A party who fails to attend or participate in the hearing may be held in default or have the proceeding dismissed.”

A similar hearing was held last month in Georgia, and Obama and his attorney refused to participate. Instead of accepting the judge’s offer of a default judgment then, which probably would have recommended to the secretary of state that Obama’s name not be on the 2012 election ballot in the state, attorneys for several citizens raising various issues asked to present evidence regarding Obama’s ineligibility.

Get Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

The judge, Michael Malihi, allowed that in several cases, but then in one sweeping opinion that didn’t even respond to some of the legal motions pending, he dismissed the testimony and ruled without evidence from Obama that he should be on the 2012 state election ballot.

The move is part of an effort on the part of citizens across the country to use each state’s election procedures to challenge Obama’s name on state ballots. It is the states that run elections, not the federal government, and the presidential race results are just a compilation of the elections run by all the states.

There are two mainstream arguments in the dispute: that he either was not born in the state of Hawaii as he has claimed, which could make him ineligible under the Constitution’s requirements that a president be a “natural born citizen,” or that he doesn’t qualify for that status since he’s written that his father never was a U.S. citizen.

Many analysts believe the Founders considered a “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two citizen parents. A Supreme Court opinion from 1875 seems to support that argument.

California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled a number of cases challenging Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office on the grounds he’s not eligible, has told WND, “Indiana is a very important state, as recently they threw out of office … their Secretary of State Charlie White for not updating his voter registration card.”

“It is important to shove in front of the elections board … all the evidence of Obama using a stolen Social Security number and a forgery instead of a birth certificate. I want to see how they will justify keeping … Barack Obama on the ballot after they removed the secretary of state for something minor,” she said.

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/indiana-warns-obama-of-eligibility-default

NOTICE OF HEARING BELOW AND HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82393917/Swihart-v-Obama-Notice-of-Hearing-and-Default-Warning-Indiana-Election-Commission-2-17-2012

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Swihart v Obama - Notice of Hearing and Default Warning - Indiana Election Commission 2/17/2012

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Commander Kerchner's Obama Ballot Challenge Hearing in Pennsylvania Set for March 1st

Commander Kerchner's (Ret) Obama Ballot Challenge Hearing in Pennsylvania Set for March 1st, 2012 - VIDEO HERE



More details on the Pennsylvania ballot challenge against Obama can be found here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/commander-kerchners-ballot-challenge.html

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama - Nomination Petition Objection Filed in the Commonwealth Court of PA i...

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC