Obama Citizenship: Lawsuit Filed To Stop Him From Running

anyone who actually cares about the good 'ol U.S. of A should be looking very closely at this lawsuit instead of dismissing it ..

ALL Mr. Obama has to do is produce that vault birth certificate and silence ALL DOUBT .. but instead what does he do ? .. he files a motion trying to prevent anyone from seeking and producing his vault birth certificate lol .. that SPEAKS LOUDLY .. and what it's saying is not good for Obama ..

so again .. anyone dismissing this lawsuit just doesn't realize how important this issue is .. if it is true, I don't want someone who was born in Kenya(another country) to be my President .. not to mention it's not legal and completely spits on the Constitution .. I'm sorry if you think that is 'stupid'

[edit on 8-10-2008 by dude77]

Originally posted by davion
The only problem being that most US laws forbiding dual citizenship were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967 (Afroyim v. Rusk) and 1980 (Vance v. Terrazas).

But Indonesia's weren't and when Obama went to school there as a child, he had to become an Indonesian national (they only way to be in school there).

And seriously... DO you want a president who has Dual Citizenship with a foreign country? Isn't that a MAJOR conflict of interest?

Well i sorta dismissed this out of hand untill i saw it scroll across the bottom of an interview with michelle obama. Said bama was responding to a brief. Just unfortunately didnt say how?

Originally posted by redhatty
But Indonesia's weren't and when Obama went to school there as a child, he had to become an Indonesian national (they only way to be in school there).

And seriously... DO you want a president who has Dual Citizenship with a foreign country? Isn't that a MAJOR conflict of interest?

Can you find me an article where it says Indonesia's laws forbid dual citizenship?

Because I am looking at the Bureau of Consumer Affairs right now and it says Indonesia does not recognize dual nationality, because it confuses certain departments, but I see nowhere where it states that you have to give up your US citizenship.

It's also worth noting that you can't renounce your citizenship from the United States unless you are at least 18 years of age, article here

More info here

So, as a child that didn't live in Indonesia at eighteen to renounce his allegiance to America he is effectively a dual citizen, from what I am reading at least. While Indonesia has never "recognized" it, that isn't close to "forbidding" it. Unless he was eighteen and did it voluntarily it doesn't count, and would still be a citizen of the United States under our laws.

I can't find any laws from Indonesia on forbidding US or other countries citizenship, so I'll leave that to you since that is your argument.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by davion]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Wabbit
reply to post by Fathom

 

Do you have any deep DARK secrets in your HEART that you want to keep from RISING to the top?

DHR? yeah I know her she's sexy as hell why you ask? do you know her or do wish you did?

The truth is that Barak Obama may actually be an illegal alien, and if so, will be arrested, charged with fraud, etc.. Then deported to Indonesia. The court of appeals may refer this to the supreme court, and if so we know what the supreme court will do, Obama will be on the way out the door...

reply to post by davion


Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deem the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law no. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 March 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part:

State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizens mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen and his children that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age prior to marriage;

Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002:

Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states, "(1)Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance with the law. (2)Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia

Under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian citizen, the adoption severs the child's relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child (Indonesian Constitution, Article 2)

The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama's arrival did not allow dual citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama's mother was requires to renounce her US Citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian spouse. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions, therefore, in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia, as the citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with Government records.

Obama attended Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Since Obama's birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian Citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the same status as an Indonesian natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would have been required to file applications with the US State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia.

The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesia regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the US, Hague Convention of 1930.

Around 1971 at the age of 10, Obama returned to Hawaii. As a result of Obama's Indonesian "natural" citizenship status, there is absolutely no way that Obama could have ever regained US "Natural born" status, he could only have become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed with the US State Dept. Obama's mother did not return with him therefore, she was unable to apply for citizenship of Obama in the US.

Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and South India in 1981. Tensions were high at that time between Pakistan and India, Pakistan was even under Martial Law. It was so dangerous that it was on the State Department's travel ban for US citizens. Obama could not have entered Pakistan with a US passport, but he could have entered using his Indonesian passport.

Indonesian passports require renewal every 5 years. At the time of Obama's travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, he was 20 y.o.

8 USC 1418 (a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state... after having attained the age of eighteen years" which would have been required for the issuance of an Indonesian Passport.

Still not convinced?

reply to post by Fathom


You think so, I always considered her somewhat of a tired joke. Lots of drama, angst and anger. Not a whole lot going on upstairs either, if you catch my drift.

But that's neither here or there, but we seem to be drifting off topic.

My point was that everyone has a couple of skeletons hiding in the closet. I know you do. Me, not anything quite as dark as you.

That's why this whole lawsuit is a farce. Obama's been in the limelight long enough for all his dirty laundry to to aired, and guess what, there's nothing there.

Yes, you have to be born on United States Soil and at least age 35..

reply to post by Fuzzy Wabbit

you seem to know alot considering you are such a "new" member...
DHR hasn't been here since you "became" a member.
that being said do we know you by a different log on name maybe?

Originally posted by redhatty
Under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian citizen, the adoption severs the child's relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child (Indonesian Constitution, Article 2)

Here's their constitution

I don't see anything about adoption where it is being referenced.

The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama's arrival did not allow dual citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama's mother was requires to renounce her US Citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian spouse. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions, therefore, in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia, as the citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with Government records.

So Berg's case can give article numbers and listings to their constitution that defines who is a citizen, but when he finally gets to the meat of his case he doesn't provide any evidence. I can't backtrack to what he's talking about when he says "The laws in Indonesia at the time of his arrival...", where's the sources that define these laws? There's nothing in what little he does reference that says anything about adoption or these laws that require the wife to renounce her citizenship.

Since Obama's birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian Citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the same status as an Indonesian natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would have been required to file applications with the US State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia.

Except, as I said and have shown, the United States doesn't allow children to renounce their citizenship to a foreign country unless it was by choice, and they have to be old enough. After looking over Berg's case he's also using outdated information. He's using the Nationality Act of 1940 to say that he has to follow his parents citizenship, when there was also a Nationality Act in 1952, and 1965, the latter of which is basically what we use today for immigration and nationalization. So it appears he's cherry picking to carry his case.

The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesia regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the US, Hague Convention of 1930.

Even though I know you're copying and pasting what someone else wrote I already went over this in a previous post, the United States doesn't encourage dual citizenship but you can have dual citizenship, and in the cases of children there have been several cases that have granted dual citizenship and most of the laws that would have been against dual citizenship were struck down by the Supreme Court.

Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and South India in 1981. Tensions were high at that time between Pakistan and India, Pakistan was even under Martial Law. It was so dangerous that it was on the State Department's travel ban for US citizens. Obama could not have entered Pakistan with a US passport, but he could have entered using his Indonesian passport.

Does Berg or anyone else have proof that there was an actual travel ban to Pakistan? I keep seeing that claim thrown around but can't find any documents that support it.

reply to post by Fathom


Can't stay on topic can you? If you want to know about me, read my intro. It's there for all to see. But enough about me.

Originally posted by davion
Except, as I said and have shown, the United States doesn't allow children to renounce their citizenship to a foreign country unless it was by choice, and they have to be old enough. After looking over Berg's case he's also using outdated information. He's using the Nationality Act of 1940 to say that he has to follow his parents citizenship, when there was also a Nationality Act in 1952, and 1965, the latter of which is basically what we use today for immigration and nationalization. So it appears he's cherry picking to carry his case.

Obama is a United States citizen by birth right. Berg can spin his lawsuit all he wants but that doesn't change this fact. The Democratic Party wouldn't risk putting forth a candidate who did not meet the minimum requisites.

This lawsuit is pure farce.

Originally posted by davion
Here's their constitution

I don't see anything about adoption where it is being referenced.

and you won't, especially when it is noted at the top of the page that

This work is incomplete.

So Berg's case can give article numbers and listings to their constitution that defines who is a citizen, but when he finally gets to the meat of his case he doesn't provide any evidence. I can't backtrack to what he's talking about when he says "The laws in Indonesia at the time of his arrival...", where's the sources that define these laws? There's nothing in what little he does reference that says anything about adoption or these laws that require the wife to renounce her citizenship.

I am quite sure that they are all readily available in Law libraries, which is how lawyers get their references for proof. If you'd like I would be glad to travel to Loyola Law School next week and look it up for myself, take photos of the pages, etc. and post them.

Except, as I said and have shown, the United States doesn't allow children to renounce their citizenship to a foreign country unless it was by choice, and they have to be old enough. After looking over Berg's case he's also using outdated information. He's using the Nationality Act of 1940 to say that he has to follow his parents citizenship, when there was also a Nationality Act in 1952, and 1965, the latter of which is basically what we use today for immigration and nationalization. So it appears he's cherry picking to carry his case.

Since Obama was born in 1961, the act of 1940 or 1952 would be the ones applicable to the time, unless the 1965 act has provisions for retroactive enforcement. If the parts that are pertinent are the same in the 1940 and 1952 acts, then it matters little which is used for reference.

Even though I know you're copying and pasting what someone else wrote I already went over this in a previous post, the United States doesn't encourage dual citizenship but you can have dual citizenship, and in the cases of children there have been several cases that have granted dual citizenship and most of the laws that would have been against dual citizenship were struck down by the Supreme Court.

I know this and I understand it, and for an ordinary person, that all good. But we are talking about President of the United States. Because this issue has never before occurred there are no guidelines one way or the other to know if a person with Dual Citizenship is "appropriate" or "eligible" to hold that office. Personally, I think it would be a conflict of interest situation.

Does Berg or anyone else have proof that there was an actual travel ban to Pakistan? I keep seeing that claim thrown around but can't find any documents that support it.

I don't know if my mother still has all the papers (she's the pack rat), but I well remember this, I even received letters regarding it because my school was planning a middle east visit for the senior class. The letter listed countries that we could not visit due to travel bans and hostilities in the area. It ultimately made us cancel the senior trip. I cannot say that I specifically remember Pakistan being on it and I can't say that I don't, but I am well aware that there were travel bans to a few countries in 1981 and years following.

Unfortunately, not everything is on the internet, some things require old fashioned research, like going to libraries and individual offices. I'd venture to guess that the Law Library would have it on record.

Originally posted by redhatty

This work is incomplete.

Doesn't mention it here either

I am quite sure that they are all readily available in Law libraries, which is how lawyers get their references for proof. If you'd like I would be glad to travel to Loyola Law School next week and look it up for myself, take photos of the pages, etc. and post them.

Yes, that'd be great.

Since Obama was born in 1961, the act of 1940 or 1952 would be the ones applicable to the time, unless the 1965 act has provisions for retroactive enforcement. If the parts that are pertinent are the same in the 1940 and 1952 acts, then it matters little which is used for reference.

Dunham didn't marry Lolo and move to Indonesia until 1967.

Unfortunately, not everything is on the internet, some things require old fashioned research, like going to libraries and individual offices. I'd venture to guess that the Law Library would have it on record.

Unfortunately I don't see how you can throw out an accusation unless you've researched it and know it for a fact. Especially when you're basically saying, "Well there was a ban on Pakistan so how could he travel?" and now you're saying you don't know if there was.

reply to post by davion

matter of correction:
the Indonesian Constitution article should have been noted as 26 not 2

Article 26

(1) Citizens are those who are indigenous Indonesians and persons of foreign origin who are legalized as citizens in accordance with the law.

(2) Residents consist of Indonesian citizens and foreigners residing in Indonesia. **

(3) Matters of citizenship and residency are to be regulated by law. **

Unfortunately I don't see how you can throw out an accusation unless you've researched it and know it for a fact. Especially when you're basically saying, "Well there was a ban on Pakistan so how could he travel?" and now you're saying you don't know if there was.

Ummm, but isn't that exactly what you have been doing? Throwing out an accusation without researching it yourself? You are the one saying that even though it has been filed in court, and there is no ruling on it yet, that the whole case is ridiculous. Bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black, don't ya think??



[edit on 10/9/08 by redhatty]

Originally posted by redhatty
Ummm, but isn't that exactly what you have been doing? Throwing out an accusation without researching it yourself? You are the one saying that even though it has been filed in court, and there is no ruling on it yet, that the whole case is ridiculous. Bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black, don't ya think??

[edit on 10/9/08 by redhatty]

Except you haven't given me any proof that Pakistan was under a travel ban, you haven't given me any adoption laws or Indonesian laws that require the mother or the child to sever their ties with any other foreign bodies and all you've really done is copy and paste an article that according to Google is all over other forums.

Burden of proof is on you in that regard. Or rather, Berg.

Far from the pot calling the kettle black, I think.

Also, Berg might want to double check his case because I was reading it and it even says "Indonesian Constitution, Article 2" in his official lawsuit.

Edit to add: I also never said this case was ridiculous, I did question how Obama could go through government background checks without being found out, eventually. I haven't been in this thread long you can go back one page and read what I really said. Nice strawman, though.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by davion]

Indonesian law at the time also did not recognize dual citizenship, meaning if Obama became Indonesian, then as far as that country was concerned, his U.S. citizenship was no longer recognized by Indonesia. But U.S. law would still recognize Obama as an American citizen. This was merely a fact for indonesian government did not effect US.

If Obama indeed possessed Indonesian citizenship as a child, it is unlikely he retains such citizenship. The country's bylaws require any Indonesian citizen living abroad for more than five years to formally declare his intention to return, otherwise risk losing his citizenship status. The law does not necessarily mean Indonesian citizenship would be immediately lost.

Now if he still held a passport after 18 then hes an indonesian citizen

Children granted dual citizenship, later, at the age of 18, have three years to decide whether they wish to become “full” Indonesian citizens, and renounce their foreign citizenship, or the other way round. Previously, under the old law, nationality was deemed to always derive from the paternal side

BERG SUIT UPDATE:

After Obama/DNC filed a protective stay on discovery, pending decision on the Defendant motion to dismiss, Berg has responded with 2 proposed, ready to sign orders for the Judge, and a pretty good argument why. Here is just a tiny snippet, but to really understand please read the whole pdf here:

obamacrimes.com...

Through extensive investigation Plaintiff learned Obama was born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province. Obama’s father was a Kenya citizen and Obama’s mother a U.S. citizen who was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born” United States citizen. The laws on the books at the time of Obama’s birth required the U.S. citizen parent to have resided in the Untied States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). Obama’s
mother was only eighteen (18) years old when Obama was born in Kenya. Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952, United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).

I am thinking IF the judge were to sign either, it might be the second one, but that's only if he is a wimp. Be a bold judge and require Obama to produce the documents or agree that he is not natural born (which of course immediately disqualifies him from running.)

Why would anyone who's really not a natural born citizen try and seek the office anyway, knowing clearly the rules? Just because he feels he can get away with it, or is there something more sinister in play such as:

Could Obama= the antichrist? Or could Obama= the Muslim implant into ruling America that has been rumored to be a plan of Islam since they cannot defeat us militarily?

NEW VIDEO

A new video is out on Berg explaining his case against Obama. Should make it easier to understand.

But whoa, that Berg has got some pretty serious credentials, and to boot, he's a longtime Democrat! So the cries of alternate motives and "this is just BS" can take a hike. This is a serious case by someone with serious credentials, who's trying to make sure the constitution is followed. I know, a crime in itself these days.

I am loving this ... he could possibly be outdone by his own true nationality. Proving his birth certificate to be a forgery though probably won't be enough to convince the Obama support crowd that he's nothing more than a liar and a criminal.

But having Obama knocked out of the race on this issue would put the Obama support lefties in their place once and for all.

Question though - why would Berg motion for a jury trial? Surely finding an unbiased jury would be next to impossible.