FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF GEORGIA
DAVID FARRAR : CIVIL ACTION : File NO: 2012CV211398
Petitioner :
: AMENDED PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
: & EMERGENCY STAY
v. :
:
BARACK OBAMA : ADDENDUM TO THE AMENDED PETITION
THE SECRETARY :
OF STATE :
:
Respondents :
Defense did not provide Ankeny v Daniels at the hearing. Judge Malihi was supposed to base his advisory opinion on what is in the record. Ankeny v Daniels was not part of the record. The most basic rules of courtroom decorum and basic fairness, were supposed to preclude Judge Malihi from even entering Ankeny in his advisory opinion. This case was never cited by the defense. Plaintiffs had no opportunity to provide a rebuttal and explain numerous points, as to why Ankeny is erroneous and why it does not apply.
A presiding judge cannot suddenly pull out of a hat some case, brought in a circuit court of another state by some truck driver, who could not even afford an attorney, and use this case as the basis of his final ruling in the case at hand, when it was never part of the record in the case at hand. Judge Malihi abused his judicial discretion in ruling that Obama was born in this country without any evidence to this extent and in bringing some obscure nonbinding case from another state as a basis for his advisory opinion.
a. His degree from Indiana technical institute in information technology;
a. She testified under oath, that she is a licensed private investigator in the state of Ohio, that she was a licensed investigator since 1995, for 17 years. This shows proper training, expertise and work experience. She also testified that she previously testified as an investigator before grand juries.
Mr. Vogt testified to a number of areas and indicators of fraud in relation to Obama's alleged copy of his birth certificate, posted by Obama on line on WhiteHouse.gov:
a. The Wong Kim Ark case dealt only with citizenship in general. It never dealt with the definition of natural born citizenship.
Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CEPlaintiffs,
1215136-60-MALIHI
1.
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e), Petitioner respectfully submits his amended petition for a judicial review and emergency stay of the final decision of Georgia's Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp (Hereafter: Sec. Kemp) in the above-named action. Grounds for this petition, as set forth more fully below, are that the rights of the Petitioner have been unduly prejudiced by Respondent Barack Obama's (Hereafter: Respondent Obama) failure to fully participate in the above styled Administrative Law Court.
2.
This Court has jurisdiction of this judicial review pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e).
3.
Petitioner David Farrar is a legal elector, residing in Polk County, Georgia.
4.
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. (see Exhibit 1) Consequently, on November 1, 2011, Georgia Democratic Party Chairman Mike Berlin submitted, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193, the name of Respondent Obama to the Sec. Kemp's office as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot.
5.
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b), Petitioner timely filed with Sec. Kemp a written challenge to the qualifications of Respondent Obama to seek and hold the Office of the Presidency of the United States. Petitioner's challenge contended that Respondent Obama had not establish to a reasonable degree of certainty his birth place and birth date. In addition, Respondent Obama does not meet the "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement of Article II, Section I, Clause5 of the United States Constitution.
Summary of the proceedings before the administrative Court and Secretary of State:
1.
Sec. Kemp forwarded the challenge to the candidate at hand to the Administrative Court. Case at hand brought based on O.C.G.A. §21-2-5(a) and (b), O.C.G.A. §21-2-193.
O.C.G.A. §21-2-5 (a) "Every candidate for federal and state office ... shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought."
O.C.G.A.§ 21-2-193 “List of names of candidates to appear on ballot; publication of list.
On a date set by the Secretary of State, but not later than 60 days preceding the date on which a presidential preference primary is to be held, the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot. Such lists shall be published on the website of the Secretary of State during the fourth week immediately preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.
2.
The case of Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000) establishes that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility. This holding relied upon O'Brien v Gross OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-MALIHI, at 12 (2008) "The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office." id.
3.
Respondent Obama filed a motion to dismiss the case. (See Exhibits 2)
4.
Judge Malihi denied Respondent Obama's motion to dismiss, concluding with Finding Number 8: “Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
5.
Attorney for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs issued subpoenas seeking appearance in court and production of vital records (see Exhibit 3). Among those was the subpoena for Respondent Obama to appear and produce certified copies of his vital records.
6.
Respondent Obama filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena. (See Exhibit 4)
7.
Judge Malihi denied Motion to Quash Subpoena (See Exhibit 5). Respondent Obama was obligated to appear and produce certified vital records in order to establish his eligibility in compliance to O.C.G.A.§ 21-2-5 and precedents of Haynes v Wells and O'Brien v Gross.
8.
In the last ditch effort to avoid production of certified records, records he could not enter into the record himself due to the limitations of his PTO; a few hours before the scheduled proceedings, Respondent Obama, through his attorney: Michael Jablonski, shocked the conscience of the Court by filing a letter (see Exhibit 6) with the Sec. Kemp, seeking to halt any further proceedings, demanding to withdraw the appeal from the proceedings and serving notice that his client would no loner participate in the case.
9.
Sec. Kemp denied such twelfth hour request and advised Respondent Obama that if he did not appear, “...he does so at his own peril.”
10.
Respondent Obama and his attorney did not appear and did not present any identification or vital records of any kind to meet his requirements as set forth in Code Section 21-2-5, and in Judge Malihi's Finding (see Item 3).
11.
Petitioners provided testimony of seven (7) witnesses and 208 pages of exhibits, showing that Respondent Obama does not have valid identification records. (See Court Transcript of ALC proceedings). As per instructions of the court, Petitioners submitted proposed summary of fact and law (see Exhibit 7).
12.
Administrative Law Court Judge Malihi overruled Petitioners' complaint against Respondent Obama. (see Exhibit 8)
13.
Secretary Kemp denied Petitioners/Plaintiffs complaint.
ARGUMENT
.G.A. § 21-2-5:
(e) An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the superior court by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided by law. Petitioner assert that the decision made by Sec. Kemp was:
1.
In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state
(a)
By way of Sec. Kemp's decision to sustain ALC Judge Malihi' ruling (see Exhibit 9), did knowingly and deliberately allow a person unfit to meet the qualification for the office being sought to be placed on Georgia's presidential preference primary ballot, or on the general election ballot of November 6, 2012, in violation of: O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
(b)
Respondent Obama was issued a lawful subpoena seeking appearance in court and the production of vital records. Among those was the subpoena for Respondent Obama to appear and produce authentically embossed and stamped certified copies of his vital records.
(c)
Respondent Obama failed to comply with said subpoena. (Note: While Respondent Obama could have complied with said subpoena, said documents could not be enter into the record of these proceedings. Mr. Jablonski (Respondent Obama's attorney) made no provision in his Pre-Trial Order (Hereafter: PTO) to enter any exhibits into the record, or offer any testimony from any witnesses, except on rebuttal.
(d)
Moreover, Plaintiff's PTO was designed and submitted with the expectation that by force of subpoena, Respondent Obama would produce his certified vital records and eventually enter them as prima facie evidence into the record.
(e)
Respondent Obama chose to ignore said subpoena and withdrew from any further participation in the case.
(f)
While I consider this a fatal error in Respondent Obama's case: failing to establish the necessary predicate to meet the qualifications for the office sought (See Exhibit 10) Respondent Obama's precipitous withdrawal from this case also affected the Plaintiffs' case. The evidence and testimony of the Plaintiffs' case, as postulated weeks earlier, was designed to simply overcome Respondent Obama's prima facie evidence, not prove beyond a reasonably doubt Respondent Obama was actually a forger, swindler, or imposter. I am afraid this point was not fully appreciated by Judge Malihi.
(g)
Had Respondent Obama not prematurely withdrawn from this case, Judge Malihi would have entered a “default” order in this case to Sec. Kemp.
It now becomes this Court's duty to mitigate the damage done by Respondent Obama's irresponsible withdrawal from this case so as not to prejudice the Plaintiffs' case by granting our request for a stay in Sec. Kemp's decision to placed Respondent Obama's name on Georgia's presidential preference primary ballot, or on the general election ballot, and by placing the burden of proof with Respondent Obama in this case, and by remanding this case back to the Administrative Law Court for further proceedings.
(h)
If we can all assume Respondent Obama IS in every respect qualified to take the oath of office in terms of when and where he was born, bringing forth sufficient independent, corroborative evidence, i.e. admission records from Respondent's mother's natal hospital, invoices for services rendered by the hospital, as well as payments made to same for services rendered, could all be used to bring this matter quickly to a close by Respondent Obama.
(i)
If this course of action fails to produce the required subpoenaed records requested by the Plaintiffs in this case, this Court should empower the Plaintiff to search for said records. By issuing 'letters of request' to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital officials and records, and to the Hawaiian Health Department officials on the island of Hawaii, to inspect the original vital records of Respondent Barack Obama, this matter can be quickly brought to a successful close for the common good of all.
(1) In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state
2.
(a)
Judge Malihi's reliance on a decision in Ankeny v Daniels, a case in Indiana, brought by two pro se litigants with limited knowledge of law and without any input of any legal counsel, is erroneous.
(b)
Defense did not provide Ankeny v Daniels at the hearing. Judge Malihi should have base his advisory opinion on what is in the record. Ankeny v Daniels was not part of the record. The most basic rules of courtroom decorum and basic fairness were supposed to preclude Judge Malihi from even entering Ankeny in his advisory opinion.
(c)
This case was never cited by the defense. Plaintiffs had no opportunity to provide a rebuttal and explain numerous points, as to why Ankeny is erroneous and why it does not apply. A presiding judge cannot suddenly pull out of a hat some case, brought in a circuit court of another state by pro se litigants who could not afford proper representation, and use this case as the basis of his final ruling in the case at hand, when it was never part of the record in the case at hand.
(d)
Judge Malihi's ruling that Respondent Obama was born in this country without any evidence to this extent and in bringing some nonbinding case from another state as a basis for his advisory opinion.
(e)
Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of Respondent Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated:
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. However, Judge Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1. But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174.
The U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.
Both clauses are not given separate effect by Judge Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Judge Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Judge Malihi’s own opinion in his Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:
“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ”
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State;
(a)
As stated previously, Secretary Kemp upheld the decision by Judge Malihi without any independent analysis or predicate showing that Respondent Obama has met his constitutional qualification to hold the office being sought, as per Judge Malihi's Finding of Law (see Exhibit 11, Finding #8) required.
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
(a)
The decision made by Judge Malihi goes against the known law and precedents and previous decisions by Judge Malihi.
The case at hand, Farrar v Obama, was based both on Minor v Happersett 88 U.S. 163(1875) and on evidence and testimony of seven (7) witnesses attesting under penalty of perjury, that even if Minor case does not control, and the citizenship of Obama's father does not control, Obama is still not eligible, as he did not show any proof of his natural born status during Judge Malihi's hearing, while the witnesses showed overwhelming uncontested evidence, that an alleged copy of Obama's long form birth certificate, posted on line on WhiteHouse.gov, constitutes a computer generated forgery, that a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, is being fraudulently used by Respondent Obama, that he does not have a valid Social Security number, that in passport records of Respondent Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, Respondent Obama is listed under the last name Soebarkah, in his school records from Indonesia he is listed under Soetoro and there is no admissible evidence to conclude, that Obama is his legal name.
Judge Malihi's reliance on a decision in Ankeny v Daniels, a case in Indiana, brought by two pro se litigants with limited knowledge of law and without any input of any legal counsel, is erroneous.
Defense did not provide Ankeny v Daniels at the hearing. Judge Malihi was supposed to base his advisory opinion on what is in the record. Ankeny v Daniels was not part of the record. The most basic rules of courtroom decorum and basic fairness, were supposed to preclude Judge Malihi from even entering Ankeny in his advisory opinion. This case was never cited by the defense. Plaintiffs had no opportunity to provide a rebuttal and explain numerous points, as to why Ankeny is erroneous and why it does not apply.
A presiding judge cannot suddenly pull out of a hat some case, brought in a circuit court of another state by some truck driver, who could not even afford an attorney, and use this case as the basis of his final ruling in the case at hand, when it was never part of the record in the case at hand. Judge Malihi abused his judicial discretion in ruling that Obama was born in this country without any evidence to this extent and in bringing some obscure nonbinding case from another state as a basis for his advisory opinion.
Lastly, Malihi erred in his statement, that "none of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony". As stated, Plaintiffs did not need to submit any witness testimony at all. In addition, the evidence provided was designed to simply overcome Respondent Obama's prima facie evidence.
If Judge Malihi's Court would have faced these same seven witnesses for a respondent having been born in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1961, at Emory University Hospital; I believe he would have quickly set aside the birth certificate, assuming it was entered into evidence, and ask for the respondent's Emory University Hospital records.
First, not all of the witnesses needed to be qualified as experts, and the ones that testified as experts, were properly qualified. Judge Malihi's statement, that none of the witnesses provided persuasive testimony, showed nothing but bias.
1. Witness Chris Strunk testified, and authenticated a report he received from the State Department in response to his freedom of information request. This report showed, that in the passport records of Ann Dunham, Obama was listed under the last name Soebarkah. One does not need to be an expert to authenticate a report received by him. Anyone can receive a report based on his freedom of information request. Just this one report, coupled with lack of any vital records, is sufficient to remove Obama from the Georgia presidential preference ballot.
2. Witness Linda Jordan testified that she ran Obama's E-Verify and it showed a mismatch, lack of match between Obama's name and the Social Security establish reason doubt as to the legal name of Respond Obama, and together with the other evidence tendered in Farrar v Obama Petition, would be enough to support Petitioner's Application for Stay in the Fulton County Superior Court. One does not need to be an expert in e-Verify. Thousands of individuals run E-verify on a daily basis.
3. Witness Felicito Papa testified, that when Obama's alleged birth certificate was published and was downloaded and opened, using "Adobe Illustrator" computer program, it showed multiple layers. He also testified, that when Obama's tax records were downloaded and opened, using the same Adobe Illustrator program, the file was not flattened, it showed layers and it showed the full Social Security number used by Obama.
Again, one does not need to be an expert to use Adobe Illustrator program. This program is sold to the public at large, anyone can use it. However, Mr. Papa testified, that he also graduated from ITT, Indiana Technical Institute, Department of Information Technology, that he used Adobe Illustrator for some 20 years. He clearly showed, that he is an expert based on his education and professional experience.
He testified that Obama's birth certificate consisted of layers, that when a document is simply scanned, you will see only one layer. When somebody is using multiple documents, taking parts of different documents, he will get multiple layers in Adobe Illustrator. Papa testified that the stamp, the signatures, parts of the serial number in Obama's birth certificate showed multiple layers, which came from different documents. Even though one does not need to be an expert, Papa clearly qualified as an expert based on:
a. His degree from Indiana technical institute in information technology;
b. He explained that he used a commercial program "Adobe Illustrator", which is a proper technical method to use;
c. He properly opened Obama's birth certificate with Adobe illustrator and found, that the birth certificate in question was not a copy of a document, which was simply scanned, but that is was concocted using bits and pieces from different documents, which in simple terms is a forgery. Judge Malihi never provided any explanation, why Mr. Papa's testimony was not persuasive.
Similarly, Mr. Papa testified that he used the same program, Adobe Illustrator, to open Respondent Obama's tax returns and saw Respondent Obama using the same Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, as what independently confirmed by Licensed investigator Daniels and Senior deportation officer Sampson.
Licensed investigator Susan Daniels. Daniels properly qualified as an expert:
a. She testified under oath, that she is a licensed private investigator in the state of Ohio, that she was a licensed investigator since 1995, for 17 years. This shows proper training, expertise and work experience. She also testified that she previously testified as an investigator before grand juries.
b. Daniels properly explained, what did she check in Obama's Social Security number and she testified that she has experience of checking thousands of Social Security numbers
c. Daniels testified, why she believed Obama's Social Security number to be fraudulent. Daniels explained that the first three digits signify the state of issuance of the Social security number. 040-049 are first three digits assigned to CT. Obama never resided in CT.
While on the stand, Daniels was shown a sworn affidavit, that she provided for the defense earlier. Attorney Taitz pointed to the attachment to the affidavit, which showed a printout from the database search performed by Daniels. The search printout showed not only a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 being used by Obama, who never lived in Connecticut and lived in Hawaii, when this Social Security number was issued to a resident of CT. She also printed out on the same printout, that the same Social Security number was connected to the date of birth 1890 and 08.04.1961 and 04.08.1961. She testified that in her opinion as a licensed investigator, the Social Security number used by Obama was fraudulent: she believed that it was originally assigned to an individual born in 1890 and that it is being currently fraudulently used by Obama.
Ms Daniels also testified, that 08.04.1961 and 04.08.1961 can be explained by the fact, that Respondent Obama's date of birth was written in an European style in one of the documents. She testified that she checked the phone records for Respondent Obama and those intermittently showed the date of birth of 1890. She also stated that she got from the Social Security Administration handwritten applications for the SSN of several individuals, who had Social Security numbers before and after Obama's. All of them came back as Connecticut Social Security numbers issued around 1977 to individuals applying in Connecticut. Daniels performed an investigation, which is routinely performed by licensed investigator. Judge Malihi did not explain why wasn't she persuasive.
For the investigation performed by Daniels she was not supposed to be an expert in Social Security. Any licensed investigator like Daniels can perform the same investigation.
Dr. Taitz provided oral testimony in court and part of her testimony was provided as an affidavit, attached to the first amended complaint and to the proposed summary of facts and law.
Dr. Taitz stated that she personally ran through the official online Selective Service
records Connecticut Social Security number 042--68-4425, which according to Papa, Sampson and Daniels is used by Obama. It showed that in yet another governmental official database there is evidence of Mr. Obama using this Connecticut Social Security number, even though he was never a resident of Connecticut.
One does not need to be an expert to go an official website of the Selective service www.sss.gov, enter the name, Social Security number and date of birth and check a record.
Dr. Taitz provided the court with a clip from "inside Edition"/CBS report, showing Mr. Obama's school registration in Assisi school in Indonesia, showing him registered there under his step father's last name Soetoro and using Nationality Indonesian. Mr. Obama never provided any evidence to refute the fact that he went by the last name Soetoro and that he does not have Indonesian citizenship. Dr. Taitz, also, testified that she personally checked on line official records of the Illinois attorneys' bar and saw evidence of Respondent Obama committing fraud and possibly perjury, if he filed our his bar application under the penalty of perjury.
In his application Respondent Obama stated that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he answered a question in regards to any other names used, as "none". One does not need to be an expert to see that this statement by Respondent Obama constituted fraud, in light of the fact that in his mother's passport records Mr. Obama is listed under the last name Soebarkah and in his school records from Indonesia, Respondent Obama is listed under the last name Soetoro. Taitz testified, that she complained about fraud and consequently Obama's inactive record was changed to not eligible to practice law. Taitz, also, testified that she Mr. requested Mr. Obama's school attendance records from "Student clearing house." Those records showed Mr. Obama attending Columbia University for nine months only, which shows a pattern of fraud and inconsistency between his official records and what he claims in his memoirs.
Dr. Taitz, also testified that there is a discrepancy between Obama's published pictures from the Noelani school in Hawaii and his school record in Indonesia, as there is an overlap of two years, hereby in 1968, 1969 he is listed as studying in the Noelani school in Hawaii under the name Barry Obama and during the same two years he is listed under the name Barry Soetoro in the Assisi school in Indonesia.
One does not need to be an expert to obtain evidence, which was obtained by Dr. Taitz. Judge Malihi never provided any explanation, why Dr. Taitz testimony was not persuasive.
Douglas Vogt testified as an expert in scanning and typesetting. Mr. Vogt qualified as an expert, as he has 13 years of experience running a company "Archive Index Systems", where he sells imaging scanners and document imaging systems. Prior to that he ran a typesetting company. He authenticated an affidavit provided by him earlier.
Mr. Vogt testified to a number of areas and indicators of fraud in relation to Obama's alleged copy of his birth certificate, posted by Obama on line on WhiteHouse.gov:
a. He testified that there was a halo effect, meaning white shadows around lines and letters, which shows computer manipulation of the image, called 'unsharp mask". He testified, that when a document is simply scanned, there is no halo effect.
b. He testified that in two alleged copies of the document the date stamp was in exactly the same spot, while one would expect it to be in slightly different area, as it is supposed to be placed by hand.
c. He testified, that the date stamp would be slightly slanted, if it were to be placed by hand.
d. He testified, that the stamp of the registrar would be clearly visible. The fact, that the stamp was a latent image, meant that it was an image copied many times, not a freshly stamped document.
e. He testified that the serial number would be sequential.
f. Mr. Vogt testified as an expert in typesetting and scanning, that there could not be kerning on a document, created on a typewriter. As kerning is an encroachment of one letter into the space of another, it is impossible, when one is using a typewriter. This is yet another evidence of a computer generated forgery Judge Malihi never provided any explanation, why Mr. Vogt's testimony was not
persuasive.
Lastly, recently retired deportation officer John Sampson testified. Mr. Sampson qualified as an expert in deportation. He testified that he has educational background in psychology and law. He testified, that he worked for the Immigration and Naturalization service since 1981. He has some 30 years of experience. He received on job training from Kennedy airport intelligence officer, who specialized in fraudulent documents and immigration fraud. He was a senior deportation officer since 1985. He has experience testifying as an expert in deportation before grand juries and administrative judges.
Mr. Sampson properly testified in the area of his expertise: Document Fraud and Deportation.
a. He testified that Obama's alleged copy of his birth certificate was suspicious, since the serial number as out of sequence, it was higher, than numbers issue later, while it was supposed to be lower.
b. He testified that the certification paragraph in Obama's alleged copy of his birth certificate was different from known certification paragraphs on the birth certificates issued at the same time.
c. He testified that the name of the registrar on Obama's alleged birth certificate was different from the name of the registrar on the birth certificates issued in the same hospital within 24 hours of Obama's alleged birth certificate.
d. He testified that he ran Obama's Social Security number through "Locate Plus", a commercial database, which showed that this number was assigned in 1977 to a person residing in Connecticut, while at a time Obama resided in Hawaii.
e. Sampson also testified in regards to the immigration file of Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, stating that it contained multiple redactions, which would not be present in a file of a deceased individual. Sampson testified, that Soetoro and Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham were deceased and Obama's step sister, Maya Soetoro was not born at the time the application in question was filed out by Soetoro. By process of elimination the only person, who could be listed in Lolo Soetoro's file, was Barack Obama. If Barack Obama had been a natural born U.S. citizen and did not lose his U.S. citizenship while residing in Indonesia, there was no reason to list him in Soetoro's immigration file. Mr. Sampson testified that all the evidence he has on Obama warrant forwarding the case to the U.S. attorney for criminal investigation. If the U.S. attorney would not prosecute, an alternative would be seeking a warrant for Mr. Obama's arrest and deportation.
Judge Malihi never provided any explanation, why the testimony of a Senior deportation officer with 30 years of experience would not be persuasive.
(b)
Judge Malihi disregarded the following arguments in regards to the natural born status
It is defined in the US Constitution Article 2, section 1, clause 5, which states "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President". So, based on the Constitution we have two options:
- a U.S. citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted or,
- a natural born U.S. Citizen.
Of course, the first provision was written into the Constitution in order to grandfather in the first Presidents, who obviously were born before the creation of the United States of America and were required to be only "citizens" at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The second part relates to all other Presidents, who were born after the adoption of the Constitution. This means that the Respondent needs to be a "natural born citizen". The Constitution does not provide a definition of what a natural born citizen is. Such definition needs to be drawn from multiple extraneous sources, available at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Just as in a recent case of U.S. v Heller 554 U.S.570(2008), where the courts had to deduct the meaning of the Second Amendment right to bear arms from the framers intent; the case at hand requires such reconstruction of the framers' intent. To this extent, this is a case of first impression, as no court ever ruled directly on the point of the meaning of "natural born citizen', as it applies to the U.S. President. The closest the courts came to the determination of natural born, is in a precedent of Minor v Happersett 88 U.S. 163 (1875).
MINOR V HAPPERSETT
Minor states:"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts…..” id. It is common knowledge and described at length in Respondent Obama's Memoirs, such as Dreams from my Father, that Obama's father was a foreigner. Obama Senior was a foreign exchange student who resided in the U.S. for a couple of years while he got his education and he returned to his native Kenya. At the time of Obama's birth, his father, who came from Mombasa, Zanzibar region of Kenya, was a British "protected person".
Respondent Obama automatically inherited his father's British citizenship upon the British Nationality act of 1948. Upon the declaration of the Independence of Kenya on December 11, 1963, Barack Obama automatically received his Kenyan citizenship on December 12, 1963. As Obama was around five years old his mother remarried one Lolo Soetoro, Indonesian national. According to Obama's memoirs (Dreams from my Father) and official biography, it is common knowledge that the family immigrated to Indonesia around 1967. Obama's school records from Indonesia show him using last name Soetoro and nationality Indonesian. So, from birth until today, Obama had citizenship of three other countries. He is a son of a foreign national and a stepson of another foreign national, therefore not eligible to be considered a natural born U.S. citizen according to the precedent of Minor v Happersett.
Wong Kim Ark
The only case law that seems to contradict Minor, is a precedent of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Wong Kim Ark is a case, relating to the citizenship of a young man, born to
two Chinese permanent residents. Kim Ark moved back to China and sought to return back to the U.S. as a U.S. citizen. Wong Kim Ark defined U.S. citizenship based on jus solis, based on the place of birth and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
two Chinese permanent residents. Kim Ark moved back to China and sought to return back to the U.S. as a U.S. citizen. Wong Kim Ark defined U.S. citizenship based on jus solis, based on the place of birth and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Wong Kim Ark is not a controlling precedent for a number of reasons:
a. The Wong Kim Ark case dealt only with citizenship in general. It never dealt with the definition of natural born citizenship.
b. Wong Kim Ark never dealt with the issue of the U.S. Presidency and heightened requirements of the natural born status as it relates to the President and Commander-in-Chief.
c. In Wong Kim Ark both parents of the Respondent were permanent U.S. residents, who intended to reside in the U.S.; who were in every respect qualified to become naturalized U.S. Citizens but were denied that right by treaty. Obama's father was never a permanent resident, at the time of Obama's birth he was in the U.S. on a student visa only, intending to return to Kenya.
d. Wong Kim Ark was not an unanimous decision. Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Associate Justice John Harlan dissented, pointing out that since the Declaration of the Independence, U.S. parted from the British Common Law doctrine of jus solis and followed the international doctrine of jus sanguinis, with offspring inheriting the nationality and allegiance of their fathers.
e. British common law doctrine of jus solis relates to allegiance to the crown, to the sovereign, which of course was abandoned in the U.S. since the adoption of the Constitution.
f. The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark was drafted by the associate justice Horace Gray, appointee of President Chester Arthur. It was rumored, that Gray's commission and subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark was done to sanitize Arthur's own lack of eligibility. William Arthur, Chester Arthur's father was an Irish citizen and there is no clear evidence, that he became a U.S. citizen prior to Chester Arthur's birth. Reportedly Chester Arthur burned his identification papers and his eligibility is covered in mystery. Chester Arthur is the only other U.S. President, whose eligibility is questioned. Just because Arthur burned his documents, does not give Obama green light to disrespect the court and the nation and show a contempt to the judiciary and refuse to produce any verifiable documents, any evidence of his natural born status. Due to all of the above Plaintiffs believe that Wong Kim Ark does not represent a binding authority.
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS
At the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution a treatise, most commonly used by the framers, was the Law of Nations by a well known Swiss diplomat and jurist Emer de Vattel. Written in 1758, it was well known to the framers and often used as a template for the U.S. Constitution. Book 1, Chapter 19, part 212 of the Law of Nations says: "The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens". It states "parents" in plural, not at least one parent in singular. Moreover, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the controlling citizenship was one of a father and Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen. The framers knew the meaning of natural born and that might be the reason, why there is no definition in the Constitution. Based on Vattel and Minor, Obama does not qualify as a natural born, due to his foreign citizenship and foreign allegiance at birth.
One of the framers of the Constitution, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote in his well known July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington: 'Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to admission of foreigners into the administration of the National government; and to declare expressly that the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."(the Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Bantam Dell 2003). Clearly Jay's construction of natural born clause was- one without allegiance to foreign nations, which disqualifies Respondent Obama.
