DO MISSING RECORDS, HAWAII’S STONEWALLING AND INCONSISTENCIES POINT TO A DIFFERENT LIFE STORY?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jan. 22, 2012) — On January 26, 2012, an administrative hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. in Atlanta, GA, regarding the constitutional eligibility of one “Barack Hussein Obama” and whether or not his name should be placed on that state’s ballot for the 2012 presidential election.
But is identity fraud, rather than ineligibility, the actual crime?
Recently Atty. Orly Taitz, one of three attorneys bringing ballot challenges on the 26th, has been informed in an email that the courtroom has been changed in order to provide “better multimedia equipment for your convenience.” The mainstream media has begun to cover the upcoming hearing challenging Obama’s eligibility, and a citizen video urges concerned citizens to attend.
…The subpoena issued to Obama comes from an administrative court rather than a law court. A court-issued subpoena has the authority of a court order whether it comes from a law court or an administrative one.
Obama just happens to be the President now and would have to take time out of his official schedule to honor the subpoena. Nevertheless, Obama is subpoened as a private individual, not as the President.
Does Obama have to honor the subpoena? The only way to get out of honoring a subpoena is to have it quashed on a motion to quash. Obama tried that and it has so far failed. He can attempt to file a motion for reconsideration. But until the court changes its mind, he must honor the subpoena and here is why.
“It is beyond dispute that there is in fact, a public obligation to provide evidence, see United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 339 U. S. 331; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 284 U. S. 438, and that this obligation persists no matter how financially burdensome it may be. Footnote 10″
“Footnote 10 [I]t may be a sacrifice of time and labor, and thus of ease, of profits, of livelihood. This contribution is not to be regarded as a gratuity, or a courtesy, or an ill-required favor. It is a duty not to be grudged or evaded. Whoever is impelled to evade or to resent it should retire from the society of organized and civilized communities, and become a hermit. He who will live by society must let society live by him, when it requires to. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2192, p. 72 (J. McNaughton rev.1961).”
Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 589 (1973). This is one case among the many on this issue.
Indeed, Obama, as a member of legally constitutued society, as a “public obligation” to provide evidence to a court, whether that court is a law court or an administrative one. His obligation is even greater given that the subpoena touches upon his right to eventually hold a public office should he win the election. Even Congress, which is not a law court, issues subpoenas which must be obeyed at the risk of suffering severe sanctions, including incarceration.
The only way that Obama could avoid the subpoena is to show that he has some privilege that protects him from giving the requested evidence. Again, Obama has been subpoened as a private person, a candidate for public office, not as the President of the United States. From the Georgia court’s ruling on Obama’s motion to quash, we can see that Obama failed to make such a showing that convinced the court that he in fact has such a privilege.
If Obama does not honor the subpoena, the court, applying Georgia law and precedents from federal law, can issue an order to show cause to him ordering him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. If he still does not comply, then he would be held in contempt of court. The court in such a case will issue sanctions to him, which can include a monetary penalty, an adverse ruling against him in the case itself, or even incarceration. Since he is the currently putative sitting President, the court would probably just opt for an adverse ruling rather than jail. That would be the best option since it gets to the heart of the matter. That adverse ruling would be that Obama has not met his burden of proof to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court could recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State that Obama’s not be allowed to be placed on the primary ballot. In the end, the Secretary of State will make the ultimate decision.
Additionally, the current sitting President of the United States not honoring a court-issued and properly served subpoena related to whether the President is constitutionally eligible for that very office could also be deemed a “high Crime or Misdemeanor” under Article II, Section 4, the article dealing with impeachment of the President. Congress could declare such conduct a high crime or misdemeanor and inititate and prosecute impeachment proceedings against Obama and they should.
For more than three years, Obama has declined to release any information about his medical history, school records and Harvard Law School compositions. One newspaper stated that Obama’s alleged attendance at Columbia University in New York City is “a mystery.” Why can Columbia produce nothing on the time he allegedly spent there? Why would they not wish to do so?
The state of Hawaii has refused to produce the original birth certificate allegedly on file with their Health Department, even after receiving a subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Honolulu and a second subpoena from the Georgia administrative court which will hold the hearing on the 26th.
On April 27, 2011, the White House released what it claimed was a certified copy of the original long-form birth certificate held by the Hawaii Department of Health. Almost immediately, bloggers and document analysts declared it a forgery.
Exactly one year before, The Washington Post placed a photo of Malcolm X with the caption “Obama touts wind energy in Iowa.” Did the editor not catch that error before publication?
If true, why would Obama have presented forged documents to the public? Recent research claims that “Barack Obama II” is a synthetic identity.
On November 30, 2007, Obama signed a notarized statement for the state of Arizona asserting that he was constitutionally eligible for the office of the President, the requirements for which are:
1. being a “natural born Citizen”
2. having resided 14 years within the country, and
3. being 35 years of age or older.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ, has launched an investigation into Obama’s eligibility and stated that a report will be issued next month containing information that could be a “shock.”
Is it possible that Obama was born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents but that his identity was changed at some point? If so, why?
At least two researchers have stated that Obama is the son of Malcolm X, a civil rights leader who converted to Islam while in prison and was assassinated on February 22, 1965 in Harlem. Israel Insider has also presented the possibility based on Martha Trowbridge’s post dated November 2, 2011.
Malcolm X had frequented The Apollo Theater located in Harlem, where on January 19, despite his busy schedule, Obama appeared and sang part of a song with a reference to the “Reverend Al Green.” Obama’s Georgia attorney, in his Motion to Quash Taitz’s subpoena for Obama to appear with the reqested proof of eligibility, claimed that it was “unreasonable” for Obama to attend because of his presidential “duties,” but he had time to embrace a woman inappropriately during a “campaign stop” in Florida last week while the mainstream media attempted to mitigate the story revealed by the photo.
There have been many inconsistencies in the life story provided to the public about Obama, including the life of his purported mother. It has been reported that Bill Ayers is the author of Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father. If Barack Obama Sr. is not Obama’s father, did Ayers write a work of fiction to convince a gullible American public of something which never occurred?
Are the photos of Obama’s purported relatives “photoshopped?” Was a history created for him, including using the birth certificate number of a child who lived for only one day, born on August 4, 1961? Was that number conveniently assigned to Obama to help create a new identity for him in the belief that no one would ever ask for tiny Virginia‘s original birth record? Is that why Obama claims he was born on August 4 when it is alleged that his real birthday is October 28, 1959?
Is it possible that information released by the State Department in regard to the travel records of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. is forged? Were the delays caused by the State Department in releasing the documents intentional to keep people focused on Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. when they were not his parents after all?
On January 16, 2012, in recognition of the holiday ascribed to the birthday of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Obama painted on a wall the words, “The time is always right to do what is right.”
On January 21, 2012, it was reported that a “former Obama staffer” was arrested “in a scheme to impersonate Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz.” Bill Ayers reportedly committed identity fraud while on the run from the authorities in the 1970s.
Researcher Martha Trowbridge believes that radical political activist Fred Newman, Ph.D. is Barack Obama’s “Uncle Fred.”
Why was the criminal record of Bari M. Shabazz altered after his alleged death, which was never proven? Malcolm X changed his name to “El-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz.” His wife and daughters used the same surname.
Did Obama achieve the presidency in 2008 “by any means necessary?” If so, is the crime of identity fraud worse than being constitutionally ineligible?
Who knows the truth, and for how long have they known it?
Editor’s Note: The link under the words “identity fraud” in our article here in regard to Bill Ayers no longer works.