Obama Eligibility Case Distributed for Conference at U.S. Supreme Court

“HIS FATHER WAS NOT AMERICAN”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Mar. 17, 2014) — The case Laity v. New York challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president has been distributed to members of the U.S. Supreme Court for conference on March 28, 2014.

On January 28, The Post & Email interviewed the petitioner, Robert Christopher Laity, on the case’s beginnings, evolution, his writing of the case unassisted, and its arrival at the Supreme Court on January 23, 2014.

Since late 2007, questions have arisen about Obama’s eligibility as a result of a paucity of information available about his birthplace, early years, education, family life, and ancestry.  In June 2008, an image said to be Obama’s Certification of Live Birth appeared at The Daily KOS, although the following year, then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs assumed responsibility for making it public while attempting to laugh off a question from WND reporter Les Kinsolving.  Gibbs had insisted that the “short-form” was the only available “birth certificate” Obama possessed.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen.”  While the Congressional Research Service (CRS) responded to the clamor of many citizens that Obama might not be eligible by stating that a simple birth on U.S. soil, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, was sufficient, it also argued that Sen. John McCain was eligible despite his birth outside the United States.  Some legal scholars have recently said that a birth to a parent or parents with foreign citizenship is a disqualifier.

It has been researched and reported that in the days of the Founding Fathers, “natural born Citizen” most likely meant a person born in the United States to two parents who were themselves U.S. citizens by naturalization or their own births in the country.

In 1916, Democrat Breckinridge Long questioned Woodrow Wilson’s opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, for his constitutional eligibility by virtue of the fact that he was born in the United States, but to two British citizens.

Obama has admitted to being born a dual citizen of Kenya and the United States, but to date, no court has allowed a debate on whether or not he is a “natural born Citizen” and therefore qualified to serve.

In 1991, Obama’s biographer statd that he was “born in Kenya” but in April 2007, changed it to say that he was “born in Hawaii” just after he announced his run for the presidency.  Other reports have stated his birthplace as “Indonesia.”  Both the Certification of Live Birth and the image posted on the White House website said to be his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii have been declared forgeries by a law enforcement investigation, along with his Selective Service registration form.

At least two different versions of the Selective Service record have been mailed to members of the public requesting it through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Four weeks prior to the release of the long-form image on April 27, 2011, Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice reportedly called for a congressional investigation “using its subpoena power” in an article which has since been removed from the internet.

At the time, columnist Monte Kuligowski quoted Rice as having said, “If it turns out that Obama knew he was ineligible when he campaigned and when he took the oath as President, it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world. As long as Obama refuses to disclose the records, speculation will grow and grow without any necessary relation to the truth. The first step toward resolving the issue is full discovery and disclosure of the facts.”

The Post & Email found that on Sunday, the long-form image was briefly removed from the White House website, intentionally or unintentionally.

Laity told The Post & Email in January that his focus is not on the birth certificate, but the fact that Obama’s father was not an American citizen when he was born.  “I don’t care if he was born in the Lincoln Bedroom; his father was not American,” Laity said.

In an email notification last week, Laity told us:

My case has been distributed for conference scheduled March 28, 2014.

We then asked, “Is this what you were hoping for?” to which he responded:

It is the proper procedure. It is proceeding through the steps.

1. File Petition. –  Done

2. Petition is docketed – Done

3. Unless case is being defended by the Solicitor General of the U.S. the respondent must respond within a certain period of time or file a waiver of response pending order of the court to do so. – New York State did NOT file either a Waiver OR a Response in this matter.

4. Respondent files response with any Motion in Opposition (or waives response as in # 3) – NY State did not file any waiver or response by February 24, 2014.

5. Both The petitioner’s Petition and the Respondent’s response is “distributed” to and considered in conference between the (9) Justices – The Court Clerk informed me that if NY State does not file a Response that my Petition will be considered alone. No filing was made by NY.

6. At least four of the nine Justices must vote to hear case. If at least four Justices do not vote to hear a case it will not be heard. There is provision to seek a reconsideration if denied a first time. After the second request, if four Justices still do not vote to hear the case, it is denied with no other recourse.

7. On the other hand,if four Justices vote to hear the matter it is taken up by the Justices and a Petitioner’s Brief on the Merits and Respondent’s response on the Merits are ordered to be filed.

8. After the time for filing briefs and responses on the merits and after review by the Justices, Oral arguments are then scheduled and held. Each party is granted 30 minutes to argue.  After the allotted statements and arguments are made, the Chief Justice then states that “the case is submitted”.

9. The court then reviews the case testimony and arguments and decides who prevails.

In addition to charging Obama with usurping the presidency, he has also named Obama in the commission of espionage and treason.

Five years ago today, CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) named Obama in the commission of treason as a “foreign born domestic enemy,” a charge which the regime never formally refuted.

Other citizens, both public and private, have since accused Obama of treason.

Recently, Rep. Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, accused Obama’s CIA of the same.