Another Obama Camp scam?

When I first read about the Virginia lawsuit claiming Obama is ineligible and the subsequent ruling by
the judge, it did not smell right. I have reread the exerpts placed on the internet and after much thought
and deciding that I had to read the Petition and the judges ruling, I searched for a record of the filing
and hearing on the official Virginia Courts website. I did extensive searching by names and dates and
found nothing. After much searching, I called the clerk of court’s office. I was told that several people
had called inquiring about the case and they could find no record of any case.

Internet accounts of alleged Petition and judge ruling

So, who is Wild Bill?

“Great News
written by Wild Bill, October 22, 2008

The Virginia lawsuit (actually a Petition for Writ of Mandamus) was filed today. Ironically, we almost missed filing and serving due to the thousands of people downtown today to see Obama speak. In even better news, the Honorable Walter W. Stout III, the chief judge, granted our motion for an emergency hearing and set a briefing schedule. We were required to serve the Board of Elections a copy of the schedule today (which we did). We must file our brief and all supporting evidence on Friday. The Board of Elections has until the 28th to file a response.

We may file a reply on the 29th and the hearing will be held on the 30th at 1:30p.m.
We did send copies of the suit and orders to the local media, but unlike some people, we are more interested in pursuing the legal battle, not whoring ourselves out to the media. For that same reason we are not setting up a website or soliciting donations.
We will let you know how things progress.”

Found here:

http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice

So, where did this come from?

“Virginia State Court Dismisses Action Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to be President
The November 03, 2008 regarding the Virginia State Court Dismissal Action Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to be President is not the result of a conspiracy, nor is it the result of a biased or unprincipled judge. I would hope all patriotic Americans would feel the same way and avoid making unfounded scurrilous remarks about the judge or the judicial system. (ObamaCrimes.com)

Review:

There are two parts – first the response on the State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president, second the issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship.

[Part 1: State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president] With respect to the first part, the judge noted that in a presidential election, unlike any other election, the electorate votes for a slate of electors, not directly for the presidential candidates. The judge noted that there is no question that all of the proposed VA electors are qualified to hold that position (a position we never contested). The judge recognized the problem with this is that perhaps there is no entity that is responsible for vetting the presidential candidates. Some on this site have argued that the DNC is responsible for vetting their candidates. There is no legal support for that argument. The judge held that the Constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate are to be determined solely by the congress in session when the electoral votes are cast.

The court cited Federal legislation further details the process for counting electoral votes in Congress. 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15, which directs that Congress shall be in session on the appropriate day to count the electoral votes, with the President of the Senate presiding. It directs that designated individuals shall open, count and record the electoral votes, and then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved:

“[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

Thus the court denied the motion for a writ of mandamaus and dismissed the petition.

As I mentioned earlier, this was the argument that I think the State had the best chance on and it strikes me as correct. Much as the membership of the Senate is controlled by the senate (see, e.g. the senator Stevens discussion), the constitution places the power to determine presidential eligibility on the congress.

Based on this, our real battle should be to contact our representatives and senators and make certain that an objection is brought at the time of the counting of the electoral votes. Remember, this will be the new congress, so wait until Wednesday when you know who your new representatives and senators are.

The Court could have ended there, but it went beyond this initial holding and addressed our other arguments (this is not uncommon – just as lawyers often make alternate arguments, courts regularly provide alternate holdings in case one is rejected).

[Part 2: issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship]

The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic. The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth.

The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen. The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.””

And what prompted Lan Lamphere to state the following?

“There is no need to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama.  No court will ever hear it and no committee will ever act on it even if it was won.” – Lan Lamphere

Found here:

http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/14/virginia-state-court-dismisses-action-challenging-obamas-eligibility-to-be-president/

If this is not another attempt by the Obama camp to shore up credibility and discredit those such as Philip J Berg, please respond with proof to the contrary.

Also, anyone affiliated with Circuit Court Judge Walter W. Stout III in Richmond Virginia, we would love to get a response from you.

** UPDATE **

I Just found this on

http://americamustknow.com/virginiacase.aspx

“Message:
RE: WILD BILL CASE

I too believe that this case is a “fake case” based on the following:

1. I conducted multiple searches for the case at http://wasdmz2.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/circuit.html — Using a variety of names, including Board of Elections, Elections, Election, etc. — and no case was reported.

2. I contacted Judge Stout’s Office (the judge in the case, per Wild Bill. (Info at http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/circuit/Richmond/home.html). The clerk there could find no record of the case in the docket.

3. I contacted two local Richmond newspapers, with all the info available. There was no subsequent report on the case. Given that at least local news has reported on all similar cases, I find it very hard to believe that local Richmond news would not report on such a substantial opinion.

============
While you and I may have drawn different conclusions about the “facts,” I believe that we both seek the truth and, therefore, provide this research – which you can verify yourself – for your consideration.”