US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility

Originally posted by DOHC

Then it would appear quite clearly to all that you haven't read the links and have a very poor understanding
of what an illegal takeover is,......

On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty.

What you are debating is whether Hawaii SHOULD be a Soveriegn state, not whether it IS.

BH has clearly shown it is..

Should Hawaii be a soveriegn state? Different debate.

While you are posting silliness like the above claiming that Law 103-150 states that Hawaii never surrenderd their sovereignty. Please show where in the ACTUAL law linked to below where Hawaii declared independance?

www.hawaii-nation.org...



[edit on 25-11-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 25-11-2008 by maybereal11]

Realtruth? LOL.

I always love when an Obama basher posts nutty extremist spam like this as if it is their own clever commentary and then they get tons of stars from Obama bashers as if they said something intelligent or original.

Word for word this is political spam and made the rounds in right wing blogs months ago.

FYI - there is TONS of records concerning Obama...even birth announcements from 1961 unearthed by a far right winger looking to prove he wasn't born in Hawaii.

Keep drinking that sour kool aide though if it works for you.

Clearly reality has a left wing liberal bias!

whatreallyhappened.com...

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Realtruth]

Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no records -- no paper trail -- none -- this can't be an accident.

Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released
Certificate of Live Birth -- Released -- Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released
Soetoro adoption records -- Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released shows Indonesian citizenship. US does not allow dual citizenship.
Punahou School records -- Not released
Selective Service Registration -- Released -- Counterfeit
Occidental College records -- Not released
Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released
Columbia College records -- Not released
Columbia thesis -- Not released
Harvard College records -- Not released
Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate -- None
Medical records -- Not released
Illinois State Senate records -- None
Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost
Law practice client list -- Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

Just because the media refused to ask any of these questions does not make them go away.

I can't believe that people are still talking about this. I was born in Hawaii in 1954. I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN and so is President-elect Obama. There have been numerous postings of his birth certificate as well as the birth announcement in the local newspaper. Now unless some hateful people want to declare that all of us born in Hawaii are not American citizens then people need to just shut up and accept the fact that Barack Obama WON!!

Finally got the page to load for me. Here is the update I was talking about in my last post.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Same source as in the OP
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGED AGAINST JUDGE JACK M. SABATINO IN ACTION CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2008 ELECTION.

.................

Today, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the NJ Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division. The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is now before the the United States Supreme Court, "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008" before all nine Supreme Court Justices.

The blog also links to the ACJC but the filing isn't showing up as of right now. The page does say this though:

All records of and investigations conducted by the ACJC’s staff are confidential in accordance with Court Rule 2:15-20. Confidentiality ceases only if and when the ACJC decides that there is probable cause for the imposition of public discipline and issues a formal complaint requiring the judge to answer and appear at a public hearing. Proceedings from the formal complaint on are no longer confidential.

So if I am reading that correctly, he may have filed a complaint like he says he did but it's considered confidential unless they decide there is probable cause and file a formal complaint.

reply to post by Jenna


It sometimes takes 24-48 hours to post on any judicial site do to filing times and how fast the records get transmitted or transported to the records department! Just thought you'd like to know and it probably explains why some states are faster than others in publishing orders or directives of the courts!

Zindo
Forgot to add, the transcriptions of the court reporters take time also!

[edit on 11/25/2008 by ZindoDoone]

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Yeah, some of them can be quite slow. If I'm reading the second part I quoted correctly though, they will only have something about Donofrio's complaint on there if they decide to file a formal complaint to publicly discipline the judge. If they decide not to, it will never be posted on that site that Donofrio filed a complaint to begin with. That's if I'm reading it correctly though. I could be wrong.

reply to post by Gools


I don't know if this was posted but
theneinblog.blogspot.com...

what the crack is this about?

reply to post by Jenna


I think they still must post the intension of, and the filing of any writ, regardless of the outcome or of they're intent to investigate!

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


I don't think they do since this complaint against the judge isn't an actual court case. I think it's more along the lines of a customer complaining to your "boss" at work and your "boss" writing you up.

I do understand what you are saying, I just don't think that this complaint is the same as a complaint that would be filed to start a court case.

Edit: It is entirely possible that I am just confused though.. I think I may be starting to confuse myself!

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Jenna]

Based on information that has surfaced to date, I am fairly comfortable with the conclusion that John McCain is not and never was a natural born citizen as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution. That is not to say that McCain is not a citizen, or even that he was not a citizen at birth. Rather, it is to say that the geographic circumstances of his birth (outside any and all U.S. states, outside any and all U.S. territories) were not such as would bestow upon him Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status.

While I am not extremely comfortable with the conclusion that Barack Obama is not at this point a natural born citizen as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution, I am beginning to think that this is what the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately conclude based on a full set of facts, once those facts are discovered, pursuant to federal court orders compelling disclosure to that effect.

The following is my theory. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu of married parents, of of which his mother was a U.S. citizen, and his father was a subject of the United Kingdom by virtue of his Kenyan nationality. At this point, and at least temporarily, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Fast forward to when Barack Obama turns 18. He is now an adult, and remains a natural born citizen. By virtue of the fact that Kenya is no longer a colony of the UK, Barack is also a full-fledged citizen of Kenya. As a dual citizen of the U.S. and Kenya, Barack now has options which, as an adult, he is fully empowered to exercise. For example, now that he is an adult, he can formally renounce his Kenyan citizenship. Since he has not renounced U.S. citizenship he has held since birth, he is free and clear to run for president of the U.S. once he attains the age of 35.

But let's say he does nothing for the time being. He is an 18 year old adult holding dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya, just living his life. He enrolls in Occidental College as an out-of-state freshman, ostensibly of U.S. nationality and citizenship. Tiring of Occidental, he learns of opportunities available at Ivy League colleges and universities for foreign nationals to matriculate at a steep tuition discount, lower entrance requirements, or both. Possessing Kenyan citizenship, Obama thinks, hey, why not apply and see what happens. He fills out a Columbia application, indicates Kenyan citizenship, signs the application, and sends it to Columbia. Much to his surprise, he is accepted, and he matriculates at the age of 20 as part of Columbia's program for accommodating students of foreign nationality. By the time Barack Obama reaches age 21, he has failed to formally renounce U.S. citizenship. By operation of Kenyan law, he loses his Kenyan citizenship. Retaining his U.S. citizenship, Barack Obama finishes his degree at Columbia, and begins living the rest of his life.

IMHO, the Supreme Court will consider Barack Obama's personal behavior between the ages of 18 and 21 to be directly relevant to the question as to whether he presently possesses Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. More particularly, they will be evaluating his actions during that time for any evidence of deliberate actions which are inconsistent with a desire on his part to preserve his Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. They will be presented with the documentation comprising his Columbia application and find where he declared himself to be a Kenyan citizen for the purpose of gaining admission and/or obtaining a break on tuition. Based on this, they will conclude that Barack Obama forfeited his previously-held Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. This despite the fact that Barack Obama never gave up his U.S. citizenship proper.

Now that I've run this up the flagpole, I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks it deserves a salute.

All I have to say is that everyone I know that is an American citizen holds on to an original copy of their birth certificate. Everyone's parent is given an original birth certificate at their child's birth. There are two copies made at birth. One is categorized at the Department of Health and the other is given to the parents. Anyone saying that they don't have a birth certificate is either lying or they're not an American citizen.

Obama's left no footprints in his 48 years? He's obviously born of a jackal.

[edit on 25/11/08 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by Intelearthling
All I have to say is that everyone I know that is an American citizen holds on to an original copy of their birth certificate. Everyone's parent is given an original birth certificate at their child's birth. There are two copies made at birth. One is categorized at the Department of Health and the other is given to the parents. Anyone saying that they don't have a birth certificate is either lying or they're not an American citizen.

Obama's left no footprints in his 48 years? He's obviously born of a jackal.

[edit on 25/11/08 by Intelearthling]

Wow... that's some gross ignorance on your part.

I don't, nor do my parents have an original copy of my birth certificate. It's been lost over the years.

So am I lying? or maybe I'm not an American Citizen?

What a ridiculous post.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Maybe you aren't a citizen. (I'm kidding, by the way.)

When my kids were born we weren't given a birth certificate. Instead we were mailed a certificate of live birth and were told to contact the health department to order a birth certificate. Could be something new, or could be a state thing though.

Edit to add: Not having a copy of your birth certificate, or the original, is not an indicator of citizenship. I'd imagine that many people have lost theirs over the years from moving or just misplacing it.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Jenna]

Click here for more information.




[edit on 25-11-2008 by Duzey]

reply to post by maybereal11

What you are debating is whether Hawaii SHOULD be a Soveriegn state, not whether it IS.

No What I am debating is whether Hawaii is legally a US State.

BH has clearly shown it is..

You call this clear proof from BH?
"Offering an apology to someone is NOT the same as declaring that Hawaii is no longer a state. In fact, this whole country was "taken" by people. An apology to native Americans does not make our country null and void. "

BH has provided no documentation to prove anything.

Should Hawaii be a soveriegn state? Different debate.

Hawaii is a soveriegn Nation, proof is in the history and court Doc's

While you are posting silliness like the above claiming that Law 103-150 states that Hawaii never surrenderd their sovereignty.

Not silliness, Only the facts, Do they not speak loud enough for you?

Please show where in the ACTUAL law linked to below where Hawaii declared independance?

Had you read through the links I provided you would not be asking such silly questions.

Subject: Hawaii Declares Independence From All Foreign Powers

Samuel Keolamauloa Kaluna, Jr.
Regent, Prime Minister
P.O. Box 359
96-3148 Pikake Street
Pahala-Kau, Kingdom of Hawaii 96777

PRESS RELEASE JULY 15, 2003





The Sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii



Announces Independence from all Foreign Powers

A Declaration of Independence, authored by His Majesty Edmund Kelii Silva, Jr. and signed by Prime Minister and Regent Samuel Keolamauloa Kaluna, Jr. and the Hawaiian House of Nobles, proclaims the Kingdom restored and states the intent of the Kingdom of Hawaii to purchase back its lands and govern them under an independent constitutional monarchy.



The Declaration calls upon the United Nations to supervise the transfer of power

and monitor the attendant transactions under international law.

On January 17, 1893, armed forces of the United States overthrew the Hawaiian government. Since the taking of our beloved islands, the indigenous Hawaiian people have experienced the vicissitude of adverse foreign occupation and suffered a genocidal decline in population. Today we are but a mere fraction of our former numbers.

Now, however, the Kingdom of Hawaii is, phoenix-like, resurgent. On November 22, 2002, the House of Nobles appointed His Royal Majesty Edmund Kelii Silva, Jr. -- direct lineal descendent of King Kamehameha the Great -- Alii Nui (High Chief and King) of the Kingdom of Hawaii.


On June 24, 2003, the Hawaiian Declaration of Independence was hand delivered to the White House in Washington, D.C. On June 26, 2003 it was hand delivered to the United Nations.

The United States State Department responded quickly to the Declaration and contacted His Royal Majesty Silva and Prime Minister Kaluna to schedule talks. Response from the community of nations has been favorable.

Many Hawaiians have expressed support of the Declaration of Independence announcing the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii. We fully expect that the United States shall endorse the principal of self-determination in this matter, ending more than a century of unlawful occupation.

For further information contact: Samuel Kaluna, Jr. at (808) 928-6188.
For a copy of the Declaration of Independence Email:
[email protected]

Source











[edit on 25-11-2008 by DOHC]

[edit on 25-11-2008 by DOHC]

reply to post by maybereal11



I believe I have proven beyond all reasonable doubt through

History documentation
US Senate documentation
US Congress documentation
Presidential admission documentation (Presidents Grover Cleveland and Bill Clinton)

And UN documentation

That the Hawaiian Island's were illegally overthrown
by a private Corporation with the unlawful use of the
United States Military and Government for gains and profits.


Therefore utilizing BH and your assertion of the fuzzy logic principal

Someone that wants anything that's yours and uses any type of
weapon (verbal or physical) to threaten you or your family's
life or freedom to obtain said property, the perpetrator would then be
considered the legal owner of said property because you freely
gave said property to the perpetrator even though the perpetrator
admitted to taking it by force and offered an apology.



Had you been paying attention you would have noticed that I did state on another thread that you were on also (Those behind the Obama Birth Cert conspiracy)

"I still don't think this will have any actual effect on his (Obama's) eligibility, since the U.S. considers Hawaii a state, but in fact if you follow the legal argument that Hawaii is an occupied country and the U.S. has never legally acquired Hawaii, the logical consequence is that Obama is not a natural-born citizen by either place or parentage, and is not actually eligible for the presidency."

What it really comes down to is whether one believes in justice or not. It's easy to support justice that works to your own favor, but the true test of moral citizenship is when you uphold justice even when it is a personal inconvenience.

If one holds that the government of the United States is obliged to obey the laws and the UN charter it freely signed, then the status of the Hawaiian people as a distinct and sovereign nation is beyond debate.




[edit on 25-11-2008 by DOHC]

[edit on 25-11-2008 by DOHC]

[edit on 25-11-2008 by DOHC]

[edit on 25-11-2008 by DOHC]

Originally posted by iesus_freak
reply to post by Gools

 

i am very concinced that Obama is not legible to be president but... i dont think anyone is going to do anything about it unless there is a protest

Really?
You're the first person I've seen questioning the President-elect's legibility.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by iesus_freak
reply to post by Gools

 

i am very concinced that Obama is not legible to be president but... i dont think anyone is going to do anything about it unless there is a protest

Really?
You're the first person I've seen questioning the President-elect's legibility.

Ho Ho ho!!! That one is too funny!

Although maybe he does have atrocious handwriting!

Who is the REAL Barack Obama?

not sure if this has been shown yet..........

Obama Forgery Exposed (Dr. Polarik Official Use)

www.youtube.com...://www.obamacrimes.com/

The Great Birth Certificate Scandal/Cover-Up of ‘08

The above was the headline this past Monday, in the Tulsa Today Newspaper. It questions exactly why the media REFUSES to even mention all the court cases on Obama's Presidential Eligibility, it also lists denied cases as well as on going cases. I stongly suggest everyone take a look at it...
www.tulsatoday.com...

[edit on 26-11-2008 by MissysWorld]