Lawyer Has Warned Democrat Election Officials Against Certifying Obama’s Eligibility

Photo: Birth Certificate published on-line by the White House purported to be Barack Obama’s. Study by several document experts say it is a forgery.  Obama has continued to ignore judge’s orders to appear in court to clear this up.

Once again we present action concerning Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President while the Controllers MSM continues to look the other way and ignore the most important question of the coming presidential election. Is  Barack Hussein Obama  constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States.” I predict that sooner or later this story will smack the MSM in the face like the food in the popular commercials. . . Probably be the taco . . . EDITOR

from Before its News

‘For any party official to do so would be to perjure him or herself’

By Bob Unruh – WND

A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.

The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.

In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic. . . . Read Complete Report

12 comments

  1. ehancock says:

    Larry Klayman is not Obama’s lawyer.

  2. ehancock says:

    No one has ever seen Bush’s birth certificate or Clinton’s or Reagan’s. Obama has published images of the birth certificates and shown the physical copies to the press AND the officials of both parties in Hawaii have stated that it sent the birth certificates to Obama, and there is the Index Data file that shows that a birth certificate for Obama exists, and there were birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961, which show the same thing.

    Obama’s mother lived in Hawaii. Obama’s father was studying in Hawaii. There is not a shred of evidence that either of them went from Hawaii to any other country in 1961—and certainly not to Kenya, where the Kenyan government said that it checked on the “born in Kenya” claim and found that it was false. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and pregnant women rarely traveled late in pregnancy in those days, and yet birthers like Larry Klayman believe there could be a chance that Obama was born outside of the USA and that the officials of both parties in Hawaii are lying about that fact.

    • dgcrenshaw says:

      Hi ehancock
      I also believe that Obama is a legal citizen. My bitch is that he feels he is above the law by ignoring court orders to appear or send legal representation when summoned to appear in different courts . He is no better than any other citizen and, just as you or I, when summed must appear or face contempt of court. Whether the charges are true of false every American must appear in court when summoned. He is no better than any other citizen in that regard, yet he puts himself above all of that. We also have never been told why he is using a fraudulent social security number.

      My other bitch is that when such action appears against a setting President the so-call “free” press has an obligation to tell us. The reason THEI is following the charges, true or false, is because the controlled MSM refuses to.

      He also continues to refuse to release his collage Records. Why? Actually what I believe he is hiding is the fact that he probably lied and said he was born in Kenya to receive benefits not afforded an American Citizen when he entered collage. That’s what I believe he is hiding.
      EDITOR

    • dgcrenshaw says:

      And Bush, Clinton, or Reagan’s publisher has not stated in a document thatthey were born outside the united States. Obama’s has; Quote ““born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
      http://www.examiner.com/article/publisher-s-1991-booklet-says-barack-obama-was-born-kenya
      Give it a break!

  3. ehancock says:

    It is always important to check the facts. The claim that Obama ignored a court order comes from a birther lawyer. There was no court order.

    Re Fraudulent Social Security number. Again it is important to check the facts. Millions of people have errors in their SS files. That does not make them frauds.

    The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.

    Millions of people have multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors:

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have

    http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-501465.html

    You might well ask why, if there is evidence that Obama has multiple SS numbers and that one of them came from Connecticut that NO committee in Congress wants to investigate? Why not?

    Because it is not illegal to have mistakes in your SS files, and lots of people do. And there is no evidence that this is other than a mistake, or a lot of mistakes. Republicans would be GLAD to hold a hearing to show that there was a crime involved with Obama’s SS number. But they KNOW that there is no evidence, and if they looked into their own files (I did to mine), they are likely to find multiple numbers in them.

    Re Obama has refused to show his college records. Answer. So?

    Romney has not shown his college records either. Bush did not show his or Clinton or Reagan. There is no law that says that presidents or presidential candidates have to show their college records.

    Why hasn’t Obama shown his? Because he doesn’t have to—-not because you think that he lied and claimed that he was born in Kenya.

    IF he had made that claim, it would have been a STUPID lie. One that he risked being found out in easily and losing his chance to get into college. Only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. Moreover, it would have implied that his parents were rich enough to travel from Hawaii to Kenya, which they weren’t. Moreover, if Obama had claimed that he was born in Kenya in an application, there would have been a decent chance that the college would have asked him to PROVE it, and since he couldn’t prove it, he would have lost that chance to get into the college. So, to repeat, it would have been a stupid lie, and a highly unlikely one.

    Perhaps Obama lied and claimed that he was a trolly car? That is just as likely as his having claimed that he was born in Kenya.

    And Obama was not born in Kenya. In addition to the birth certificate from Hawaii, the Kenyan government said that it had checked on that allegation, and found it false.

  4. dgcrenshaw says:

    ehandcock

    Bottom Line: Obama is NOT above the law. Period.
    from yahoo news:
    youtube
    BREAKING ALERT! Obama Refuses to Show at Georgia Hearing. Hearing GOES ON!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3H6k2bSWl4

    123
    President Obama Refuses to Appear in Georgia Court
    Doc Vega, Yahoo! Contributor Network
    Feb 1, 2012
    Excerpts

    COMMENTARY | On Jan. 26 President Barack Hussein Obama flagrantly violated the state law of Georgia and the court of Judge Michael Malihi, and refused to appear. The President of the United States had been served with a summons to appear in court to prove his eligibility to occupy the oval office, and thus, be legally affirmed as a candidate for the Democratic party to run for office again. However, after Obama’s lawyers had moved for a motion to dismiss the case, Judge Mahili in deference to every other justice who has kicked the can down the road on the Obama eligibility question refused to cave.

    Facts To Consider Before You Dismiss this Controversy

    In answer to Democrats and liberals who have demonstrated skepticism over the Obama eligibility question and have focused rabid denunciation upon those who feel that a US President should not be allowed to flaunt the law, I have these questions:

    1) If the President of the United States of America is allowed to refuse an appearance in court, skirt Constitutional requirements, and conduct fraud, why should any other citizen have to comply with the law of the land?

    3) Why has Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro hired 11 legal firms in 12 states to block disclosure of his true Constitutional eligibility spending more than a million dollars in doing so? Why?

    4) Why did senior elections official for the state of Hawaii Timothy Adams, testify that not only could he not find any proof of Obama’s birth certificate, but that it was general knowledge among staff and state leaders that no such COLB existed?

    If you need more links to reports that Obama Refused to go to court when ordered use your search engine

  5. ehancock says:

    Re Tom Adams:

    Tim Adams, a member of a white supremacist group, was lying. He said that “everybody in the election commission knew”–but nobody, not one person in the commission or formerly in the commission, has confirmed what he alleged.

    And the officials in Hawaii have stated that the members of the Election Commission did not have access to the birth certificate data.

    In contrast to Tim Adams, three Republican members of the Hawaii government including the former Republican governor, and several Democrats including the current director of the DOH have stated that they have seen Obama’s birth certificate in the files and that it is exactly the same as the birth certificate that the White House has published. In addition, Obama’s birth certificate is confirmed also by the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961.

    Only the DOH could send those notices. How do we know? We know several ways. The name of the section in the newspapers was the Health Bureau Statistics section. From the name, and also from spokesmen at the papers and at the DOH, we know that listings in the section came from the Health Bureau, the DOH, and only from the DOH. In 1961 the DOH only sent out the birth notices for children that it had issued birth certificates to, and it only issued them for births IN Hawaii.

    Obama has published images of the birth certificates and shown the physical copies (with the seal on the back, which one reporter stated that she had felt) to the press.

    AND Hawaii has stated that it sent the birth certificates to Obama, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have confirmed that there is a birth certificate on file and that the facts on it match those on the birth certificate in the files, and there were birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961.

    Recently the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm other facts on his published birth certificate. Hawaii did, and the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona accepted it as evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November.

    Obama’s mother lived in Hawaii. Obama’s father was studying in Hawaii. There is not a shred of evidence that either of them went from Hawaii to any other country in 1961—and certainly not to Kenya, where the Kenyan government said that it checked on the “born in Kenya” claim and found that it was false. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and pregnant women rarely traveled late in pregnancy in those days, and yet you apparently think that there could be a chance that Obama was born outside of the USA and that the officials of both parties in Hawaii are lying about that fact.

  6. ehancock says:

    The claim of Obama not obeying a subpoena still comes from the birther lawyer and still is not true. Three things show that it is not true; (1) there is no confirmation of this report; (2) When the judge (who by the way ruled AGAINST the birther case, saying that the birther witnesses were not credible) issued his final ruling he did not say in it at any time that he had subpoenaed Obama; (3) Administrative law courts in Georgia do not have the power to issue subpoenas.

  7. ehancock says:

    The “millions of dollars” claim is still made up by birthers without a shred of evidence to confirm it.

    Moreover, it is logically false. It implies that Obama spent money to hide his background. In fact there were ONLY cases against Obama to keep him off of the ballots. Obama only defended cases that tried to keep him off of the ballot or declared not eligible, and he won in every case.

  8. ehancock says:

    Obama, who really was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the officials of both parties in Hawaii and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the newspapers of Hawaii by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show, and who is a Natural Born Citizen because the US Supreme Court has ruled that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth (not parents) was re-elected President of the United States last night. He won both a majority of the popular vote and a clear majority of the votes of the Electoral College.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


2 × = sixteen