Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
What President Obama has described as a monumental victory – the passage of health-care reform legislation – could be linked in court to the ongoing controversy over his eligibility to hold the nation’s highest office.
Attorney Orly Taitz – now a candidate for secretary of state in California – today provided to WND a court filing in which she asks that her eligibility challenge be joined with a case that contests the constitutionality of the Democrats’ massive health-care plan.
Taitz argues, “H.R. 3590 was signed into law by Mr. Barack Hussein
Obama, who … never proved his legitimacy to the presidency. Therefore
the act is invalid, as it was not signed by one legally entitled to
Her e-mail documentation indicated she filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under federal court rules.
She’s asking to link her case and the case brought by a long list of state attorneys general against the health-care law, Florida et al vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Taitz is suing Obama “in regards to damages suffered by her” as part of an amended complaint filed in federal court in Washington.
She submitted a series of affidavits to support her claim, including one from former federal examiner and law enforcement officer Sandra Ramsey Lines, who contends Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” as posted on the Internet by his campaign cannot be used as documentation of his birth.
A separate affidavit from an Ohio private investigator said the Social Security number Obama apparently is using “appears to also be associated with someone born in the year 1890.”
A second investigator, this one from New York, said his work revealed the Social Security number has been issued in Connecticut, even though Obama apparently has no ties to the state.
Taitz cited the evidence to argue there are many unresolved questions about Obama’s history that cast doubt on his eligibility to be president under the Constitution’s requirement that the office be held by a “natural born citizen.”
Her motion describes the health-care plan as an interference with existing contracts, a breach of contract and an unenforceable contract.
“It might be a stroke of providence that this unconstitutional bill was signed into law by an ineligible president, and that these responsive pleadings were submitted for consideration only a few days before the day of the ancient holiday of Passover, which celebrates freedom from bondage and usurpation,” her pleading states. “It is time for the lawful and law abiding free sovereign citizens of this nation to have standing and representation alongside free sovereign states to break from usurpation and bondage,” she wrote.
“Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born,” says a new filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.
“We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a ‘citizen of the United States’ under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii.”
The submission comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo. His brief argues against the earlier document from Obama’s attorneys demanding that the case be dismissed.
Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”
The complaint also asserts “when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.” The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen,” excluded dual citizens.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. And still others contend he holds Indonesian citizenship from his childhood living there.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.