WorldNetDaily Article Interviewing ‘Yours Truly’ (me)

(For a full understanding of the Obama eligibility issue, please go to https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/ )

Bob Unruh, the lead reporter on the Eligibility issue (along with Dr. Jerome Corsi) interviewed me on Friday.

The article was posted Saturday morning at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98245

It was an honor following Dr. Daniel Tokaji, who I insisted Mr. Unruh contact. Professor Tokaji’s Michigan Law Review article ‘The Justiciability of Eligibility’ is a must read and I believe it was cited in my ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ blog post. Maybe not. However, the jurisprudence of eligibility is well covered by the Hollister vs. Obama up-date. https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/hollister-vs-obama/

My contribution was a suggestion that existing case law from the U.S. Supreme Court allows the Justices to set aside the merits of a case while requesting amicus briefs on a legal question. (Cf. Sua Sponte order by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Metabolite case.)

Until now, judges have refused to hear any Eligibility cases due to the Political Questions Doctrine. The 3rd Circuit corruption of jurisprudence by Judge Surrick is an exception. Phil Berg’s case should have been heard. The Constitutional issue far outweighed any discretionary concerns for standing.

The Political Questions Doctrine removes subject matter jurisdiction from a court if the merits of the case would change an election. However, the court can address a matter of law and let another branch of government, or a lower court decide the issue.

This is what happened in Bush v Gore. The Supreme Court examined Florida’s own constitution, which was analagous to the U.S. Constitution’s requirement to certify election votes. The Florida court then decided to reverse its own previous position.

In the case of Obama’s Eligibility under Article II, the court can ignore the merits of the particular case and publish an opinion on the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Then, congress could exercise its constitutional powers under Art. I, Sec. 8 and move to remove Obama from office.

Advertisements

25 Responses to “WorldNetDaily Article Interviewing ‘Yours Truly’ (me)”

  1. Ed Darrell Says:

    Is there any evidence of an “Indonesian naturalization?” Generally such a legal process requires a process be followed. The necessary court records from Indonesia are public records. Where are they?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Thanks for the question. I was going to chide you for failure to read the footnotes, but (wisely) checked my reference to Indonesian law and found another edit failure that deleted the enumeration for footnote 27. I ‘pasted’ the original WORD document into the WordPress template designed for WORD, and it isn’t a perfect transfer.

      I fixed the missing ‘[27]’ between footnote [26] and [28] and there you will find the full appropriate citation of law from Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958. I am relying on attorney Philip Berg’s citation in his Berg vs. Obama case, and I also reference that document with hyperlinks.

      To summarize, Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. It also continues the custom of automatically naturalizing the domiciled spouse of an Indonesian man, and her children. (Only since 1922 has this not been the law in the U.S.) In addition, only Indonesian citizens were allowed to matriculate into Indonesian schools . . . Obama was naturalized as a minor by his mother.

      If you read more of the blog, you will discover that Obama’s mother remained in Indonesia and worked in Lahore, Pakistan until her final days when she returned to the U.S. to die of cancer. In effect, Stanley Ann Dunham renounced her U.S. citizenship. Barack Hussein Obama did not become a U.S. citizen as an adult (Cf. his brief domicile U.S. citizenship when abandoned by Obama, Sr. and living with his mother in Hawaii ages 2 through 5) until ages 19 through 28.

      This concepts of domicile, birthright nationality, and citizenship are essential to determine if Obama was a ‘natural born citizen’ or not. It would be very difficult for a natural born U.S. citizen to renounce their citizenship and become a Kenyan or an Indonesian. For Barack Obama, becoming or remaining either of those two was a simple matter. Becoming a U.S. citizen, however, required strict following of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. If not for his birthright nationality and brief citizenship by default in Hawaii, he would have had to complete a full registration and oath of allegiance.

  2. Ed Darrell Says:

    How does one renounce one’s citizenship “in effect?” Have you evidence backing the claim that Obama’s mother ever held any citizenship other than U.S.?

    Generally, under U.S. law, we treat U.S. citizenship as a high privilege and honor, not something that other nations may take away with a mere operation of law unaccompanied by explicit consent of the person involved, in a legal proceeding. Is there any evidence of such a proceeding at the various stages you claim here?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Quick answer: By marrying an Indonesian and making your official domicile there, you are accepting Indonesian jurisdiction.

      You are correct, that while Dunham-Soetoro did renounce her citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 1401 (if memory serves), under current liberal interpretation of that law the State Department has the burden of proof to show intent of the self-exile to ‘renounce’ citizenship. If you read the Terrazas case, that is the point made.

      However, the undeniable fact that Dunham never returned to Hawaii except to die near her family makes proof of intent a moot point.

  3. Ed Darrell Says:

    By the way, courts accept Obama’s certificate for all purposes except proving he is a native Hawaiian. As you know, the full faith and credit clause requires all states to honor it. For all national purposes, that certificate is the valid one. The State Department accepts it. The Defense Department accepts it. On what basis do you claim it’s not valid?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      The C.O.L.B. is a computer-generated form with its lines filled in from a database. You can create similar database forms in Microsoft WORD.
      Of course, there were no such computer records in 1961. Therefore, the original birth data and certificate are on file in Hawaii . . . selected data was automatically inserted into the proper lines of the C.O.L.B. when generated and printed on a laser printer. At the bottom margin of the C.O.L.B., the document is identified as ‘prima facie’ evidence.

      If you read my up-date on Hollister vs Obama, the section on ‘prima facie’ evidence explains why the C.O.L.B. would NOT survive evidentiary challenges in court. Endnote 12 in Kerchner et al vs Obama et al is box quoted, and is an excellent explanation of the jurisprudence of legal challenges to prima facie evidence.

      Briefly, prima facie evidence (evidence accepted initially on face value) once challenged puts the burden of proof on the presenter of that evidence. In the case of the C.O.L.B., the original birth registration data and/or the birth certificate would be required to validate the C.O.L.B. Lacking the witnessed birth certificate, the C.O.L.B. would be thrown out as invalid evidence by the judge. This is explained in my blog.

      Once the C.O.L.B. is proven insufficient, or lacking probative value, the African affidavits of Berg and Corsi would be the only legal evidence of Obama’s birth data . . . plus, the original birth certificate which remains hidden (see intentional fraud). Dr. Fukino’s press release is of no value. Her claim to have seen a legal birth certificate under Hawaii law may only reference his birth registration, which was compulsory under Hawaii law and required no birth certificate per se.

  4. Ed Darrell Says:

    I found a post of yours that had a footnote 27 in it, relating to Indonesian law. It’s quite clear that it refers to children of the Indonesian parent. No one has ever claimed Soetoro claimed to anyone that he was the actual father of Obama. Without such evidence, of course, that clause out of Indonesian law doesn’t apply.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Soetoro became the ‘legal’ parent. Under both U.S. and British law, Obama, Sr. lost his status of ‘legal’ parent. This is why Obama’s original/natural birth as a British subject expired and for a brief time prior to his mother’s Indonesian marriage, Obama was by law a U.S. citizen. 8 U.S.C. 1101 gives the legal definition of ‘parent.’ In the law, there is a distinction between ‘father’ and ‘parent.’

      If a ‘natural born’ citizen, there would be no question of Obama’s nationality and citizenship at the time of his birth. There would be only one possible. Even if born in Hawaii, of which there is no probative evidentiary proof, Obama was born under British jurisdiction naturally through the father.

  5. Ed Darrell Says:

    If you read my up-date on Hollister vs Obama, the section on ‘prima facie’ evidence explains why the C.O.L.B. would NOT survive evidentiary challenges in court. Endnote 12 in Kerchner et al vs Obama et al is box quoted, and is an excellent explanation of the jurisprudence of legal challenges to prima facie evidence.

    Briefly, prima facie evidence (evidence accepted initially on face value) once challenged puts the burden of proof on the presenter of that evidence. In the case of the C.O.L.B., the original birth registration data and/or the birth certificate would be required to validate the C.O.L.B. Lacking the witnessed birth certificate, the C.O.L.B. would be thrown out as invalid evidence by the judge. This is explained in my blog.

    The Hawaii certificate is the birth certificate, under law. The State of Hawaii has certified it as correct — as the stamp on the thing indicates.

    There is no challenge to the certificate. As I’ve noted at my blog, several organizations have already looked at it and accepted it as the one. (No one has seriously challenged any of the six rebuttable presumptions I lay out — why don’t you come make a response?) The challenge would need to take the form of solid evidence of a birth outside of Honolulu, or hard evidence of fraud on the part of the State of Hawaii, or legal proceedings of a revocation or resignation of citizenship, which would be public record in the nation in which the event occurred.

    No such evidence has been presented by anyone. While some claim that a garbled video tape of an old woman suggests Obama was born in Kenya, there is no corroborative evidence, and for lawyers who made the trip, they sure blew it by not getting an affidavit from the woman (incompetent lawyers bug me, and serve as a warning beacon that they don’t really have a case). There is not even a hint of fraud by Hawaii (and, by the way, that certificate is legally required to list an accurate place of birth: It says “Honolulu.”). After months of claiming problems with Indonesian citizenship, no one has produced document 1 showing any of the citizenship-defying events you claim, ever occurred.

    Once the C.O.L.B. is proven insufficient,

    There is nothing to suggest this could ever occur.

    . . . or lacking probative value, the African affidavits of Berg and Corsi would be the only legal evidence of Obama’s birth data .

    Neither Berg nor Corsi was a witness. If they make such an affidavit, that would be fraud.

    . . plus, the original birth certificate which remains hidden (see intentional fraud). Dr. Fukino’s press release is of no value. Her claim to have seen a legal birth certificate under Hawaii law may only reference his birth registration, which was compulsory under Hawaii law and required no birth certificate per se.

    You’re implicitly alleging that the birth certificate Hawaii issued is fraudulent, but you’ve offered absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. If wishes were evidence, the Innocence Project wouldn’t be freeing men from death row across the nation — prosecutors would wish the evidence into existence.

    Wishes are not evidence. There’s no case against Obama’s eligibility.

    (I revisited the issue at my blog, here. No significant or substantial responses there, either.)

    • paralegalnm Says:

      No. Sorry. If the original certificate exists, it is on file and Obama would have produced it.

      If there is no certificate, there is only a registration form under Hawaii law 338-5. That registration was sufficient to produce a computer-generated C.O.L.B.

      Historical note: Computerized databases became available to government in the mid-90’s. Obama was born in 1961. The C.O.L.B. is a document produced with a push of a button, or two. A certified copy of the original certificate requires physical handling and copying. That is why the C.O.L.B. is not equal to a certified copy.

      Signed and witnessed affidavits are in Berg’s possession. They are equal to sworn witness testimony. The C.O.L.B. lists no witnesses or includes signatures. It is useless as evidence in the face of competing witness testimony.

      You need to study ‘Barack Hussein Obama–A Natural Born British Subject’ more . . . I explain the Compulsory Hawaiian birth registration process when no certificate is available, or presented.

      You need to peruse the link to Hawaiian Revised Statute in my legal blog. You also need to revisit the Kerchner endnote 12 . . . if that doesn’t help, you are woefully lacking in aptitiude for understanding law.

  6. Ed Darrell Says:

    Soetoro became the ‘legal’ parent. Under both U.S. and British law, Obama, Sr. lost his status of ‘legal’ parent. This is why Obama’s original/natural birth as a British subject expired and for a brief time prior to his mother’s Indonesian marriage, Obama was by law a U.S. citizen. 8 U.S.C. 1101 gives the legal definition of ‘parent.’ In the law, there is a distinction between ‘father’ and ‘parent.’

    Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu. At no point did this citizenship ever expire that anyone can tell. The citizenship of his father is completely irrelevant under U.S. law, since his father was neither a diplomat representing another nation, nor a member of the military of another nation. In the U.S., we don’t let other nations decide who can be a citizen in the U.S.

    Obama was a U.S. citizen from birth, until now, so far as we know. Had he become an Indonesian citizen, that would have required a court action, and maybe a hearing. There is no record of any such action, ever.

    If a ‘natural born’ citizen, there would be no question of Obama’s nationality and citizenship at the time of his birth. There would be only one possible. Even if born in Hawaii, of which there is no probative evidentiary proof, Obama was born under British jurisdiction naturally through the father.

    It’s fascinating to me that you refuse to accept the fully certified certificate from the State of Hawaii, as the Constitution requires all states to do. Hawaii was a U.S. state in 1961 — that’s not British jurisdiction.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      If there is proof of Hawaiian birth, Obama was a ‘native born’ U.S. citizen under 8 U.S.C. 1401. Natural born requires two U.S. citizens . . . no dual nationality.

      If the legal father, Obama, Sr., claimed him through proper registration (see the 1948 British Nationality Act which is fully cited in the footnotes) Obama would be born a British subject. At best, he would have dual citizenship. However, it soon became clear that Sr. abandoned the family, and the choice of nationality swung to the mother.

      The mother determined Obama’s legal residence, known in the law as domicile. Domicile is integral to citizenship as it controls a slew of laws the ‘citizen’ chooses to live under, e.g., jurisdiction. Taxation, business licensing, inheritance, marriage . . . it is a long list. Again, Obama was not an adult U.S. citizen until he was at least 19 years old. His nationality from his birth to that date changed on circumstances of the parents. At birth, he was a British subject. I describe Kenyan birth vs. Hawaiian birth consequences in the blog. At the time of abandonment and change of domicile to Hawaii, he became a U.S. citizen (legally, ages two through five). At six years old, he was naturalized through his mother to an Indonesian citizen, with U.S. nationality birthright which he used to become a U.S. citizen between the ages of 19 through 28. That law did not require registration and the Oath of Allegiance. If Obama had not fulfilled the five-year continuous residency, then formal application would have been required.

      Your claim U.S. law took precedent is in error. The father that supports the family decides the domicile and jurisdiction of the minor. Stanley Ann Soetoro did just that by marrying Lolo Soetoro and permanently moving to Indonesia, naturalizing Obama as an Indonesian Muslim as a minor.

      Because of a foreign father(s), Obama had multiple choices of nationality until age 19 allowed him to settle on U.S. citizenship. This is as far from a ‘natural born citizen’ as you can get. In fact, one may argue that Obama’s ties to the Luo tribe in Kenya would allow him to easily switch to a Kenyan citizenship. His Indonesian citizenship is effectively renounced living as a U.S. citizenship. Indonesian law bars dual citizenship.

      For the last time, the bottom notation on the Certification of Live Birth indicates the document is only ‘prima facie’ evidence. Prima Facie evidence is weak/invalid in the face of legal challenge. As Kerchner’s endnote 12 explains, the document is worthless in the face of other evidence unless Obama can produce the original birth certificate witnessed by a doctor or licensed midwife.

      Jurisdiction flows from the father naturally . . . not the place of birth . . . sorry. Only after the Cable Act of 1922 did the mother’s nationality count for something.

      Obama’s C.O.L.B. is essentially invalid until the original witnessed certificate is produced . . . the Hawaiian birth is void in a court of law and the burden of proof is Obama’s, which he has refused to comply with . . . spending about a million in lawyer fees to hide the original documentation.

      You are wrong . . . Obama has fooled you and millions of others . . . he is obligated under his oath to protect the Constitution to produce the original certificate of birth. Otherwise, he is a criminal until proven innocent . . . that is the jurisprudence of challenge to prima facie evidence. Similar to Obama’s violation of Rule 36 in the original Berg vs. Obama case, Obama has legally admitted to not being a U.S. citizen at birth . . . Judge Surrick violated judicial ethics and procedure by dismissing the case.

  7. paralegalnm Says:

    Note how Fillmore’s Bathtub (any relation to ‘Bathtub Boy’?) has sunk below the soap ring resorting to ad hominum attacks.

    I have challenged dissenting opinion with laws fitting the facts. That is why David Kupelian, Bob Unruh, and others in the field have contacted me repeatedly, making sure they got the law straight. I gave up law school to concentrate on photography, but I still am called on occassion to do research for lawyers.

    For ethical reasons, the WND article begins with an interview with Prof. Daniel Tokaji, a published expert on election law. I insisted Mr. Unruh contact Prof. Tokaji to substantiate the novel approach I suggested; that the supreme court could ignore the political questions leaving the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ a question of original jurisdiction, before publishing an authoritative opinion on the unique and sole use of the legal term in the Article II ‘eligibility’ clause.

    I tried to focus my interpretation of law to the blogsters at Filmore’s, but they don’t seem to have the attention span or aptitude to read the cited law.

  8. Ed Darrell Says:

    Otherwise, he [Obama] is a criminal until proven innocent.

    That’s exactly contrary to the law here in the U.S. Here, in all 50 states, it’s “innocent until proven guilty.”

    Didn’t you say you practice in the U.S.?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      I thought you’d jump on that. Just like the pretrial rule (Rule 36) Obama and Judge Surrick violated, when your prima facie evidence is challenged you are guilty per se if you don’t respond. Obama refuses to produce documentation supporting asserted birth data on the C.O.L.B.

      You keep waving the C.O.L.B. about as if it has evidentiary value . . . at the moment, it is more useful as toilet paper.

  9. Ed Darrell Says:

    I tried to focus my interpretation of law to the blogsters at Filmore’s, but they don’t seem to have the attention span or aptitude to read the cited law.

    I presented six different sets of facts, all verified, all of which create separate presumptions that Obama is who he says he is. Have you no answer to any of them?

    It’s fascinating that you invent fantastic tales about Obama’s birth, and then claim to be interpreting the law (incorrectly in those cases where you do interpret it). I’ll match my LSATs, legislative and courtroom experience against yours any day.

    As far as your LSAT’s and litigation experience, I’ve sued lawyers and won. Obama, in my opinion, is just another law breaking lawyer.

    If you have a fact, come present it. If you don’t have the evidence, don’t wonder why you’re out in the cold on this issue. Calumny against a good and respectable man like Obama is still not acceptable in polite company, let alone in court.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Your so-called ‘facts’ are falacious. Without a certified copy of the 1961 birth certificate witnessed by a doctor or other licensed official, the C.O.L.B. is baseless . . . made up ‘facts’ better known as perjury. Yes. I accuse his mother of falsifying birth data in order to get Obama registered in Hawaii.

      The burden of proof shifts to Obama . . .

      There is a way to get a baby registered in Hawaii without confirmation from a hospital, licensed doctor, or other witnesses . . . it is called a Compulsory Registration. It is linked in my blog . . . read it. Again, Obama failed to offer proof of even his ‘native’ birth . . . therefore, the affidavits from African witnesses are evidence admissible in court and have weight as reliable testimony. Even Obama admits he was born a British subject . . . that is the natural transmission of allegiance through the father.

      Obama has a history of slimy, greasey politics. His communist/terrorist associations and mentors, the tax dollars he robbed/legislated as a state senator to political cronies disappeared, just as he is doing to the U.S. Treasury so siphon off billions to ACORN and leverage nationalization of key U.S. industries.

      He is no more righteous than a Somali pirate or a punk siphoning gas. In fact, his defiance of Condaleeza Rice to back off supporting Raila Odinga resulted only in a lying speech he made to the Luo that caused a riot massacring over one thousand Christian Kenyans . . . some burned alive in a church.

      As the great David Hume philosophized: ‘Warned once by an official is merely a sin; but to ignore the official’s warnings is committing a crime.’ (I paraphrase.)

  10. jtx Says:

    It’s good that you pointed out the Judge’s faux paus in the Hollister case and the poster Ed Darrell seems to be decidedly pro-O. If he’s an attorney he may be one of the sorts you mentioned earlier.

    At any rate, great work! Keep on keepin’ on.

  11. paralegalnm Says:

    Here is the law. A good first step.

  12. paralegalnm Says:

    I never suggested $10 million. News sources estimate $800 thousand . . . and with the number of law suits, it seems reasonable to go with that reported figure.

    Pre-trial Production is one of the few ways we can legally access Obama’s birth certificate, short of revision of federal election law (H.R. 1503). That is why Obama is sparing no expense to stop lawsuits at any level of venue.

  13. paralegalnm Says:

    Corsi also attempted to meet with Obama’s family members . . . his ‘brother’ living in a slum was his first stop, but his visit was cut short . . . it was reported Odinga himself used contacts in the government to arrest Corsi.

    All Dunham needed was her Passport and the Kenyan birth certificate to show to a U.S. agent or foreign ministry.

  14. paralegalnm Says:

    Pre-trial production would include a certified copy of the original birth registration . . . your argument is specious.

  15. RightWingGuerrilla Says:

    I can’t wait to come back and read more. I don’t believe for a second that Obama has proven his eligibility.

  16. paralegalnm Says:

    In response to the spam-level of attacks by Willard Fillmore’s Bathtub posters and the moderator, I’ve had to seriously edit their comments and insist they just read my legal memorandum fully before commenting.

    The latest attack has been on the Affidavits and Recordings from Kenya attached as exhibits in attorney Philip Berg’s first law suit against Barack Obama. I refuse to post their URL links. To listen to the tape recording and accessing the Affidavits, please visit Phil Berg’s official website at http://www.obamacrimes.info/justthefacts.html

  17. paralegalnm Says:

    Phil Berg at obamacrimes.com has the Indonesian school’s registration of Barry Soetoro as Muslim and Indonesian citizen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: