If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Joseph DeMaio

John Locke was a 17th-century British physician and political philosopher. Although he died in 1704, his works strongly influenced the signers of the American Declaration of Independence.

(Jun. 2, 2011) — Editor’s Note: The following is the conclusion of  Joseph DeMaio’s analysis and exposure of the language contained in two memos issued by Atty. Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service, apparently prepared with the specific intent of justifying Barack Hussein Obama’s occupation of the White House while failing to meet the constitutional requirement of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 as a “natural born Citizen.”  Both “CRS Memos” discussed previously in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series attempt to define a “natural born Citizen” as one simply born on U.S. soil while obfuscating information which would have made the arguments presented therein moot due to Obama’s foreign father, and, later, his release of what he purported to be a certified copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate.

In CRS Memo 1, Maskell contends that Obama’s short-form “Certification of Live Birth” is an acceptable form of proof of his alleged birth in Hawaii and therefore of eligibility; the second memo cites the case of a young Prussian man who, according to the opinion of the U.S. attorney general and Supreme Court at the time, could have become president even though he was taken away to Germany by his father.  DeMaio points out that Maskell’s strategically-placed ellipsis appears to purposely omit the fact that Steinkauler’s father had become a naturalized U.S. citizen before his son’s birth on U.S. soil.  Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen, and with the image unveiled to the public on April 27, 2011 having been deemed a forgery by experienced analysts, Obama’s claim to a birth in Hawaii has yet to be confirmed.  While Hawaii officials Loretta Fuddy, current Health Department Director; Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former Health Department Director; former Governor Linda Lingle, and now-Governor Neil Abercrombie, others have stated that Obama was definitely not born in Hawaii.

WorldNetDaily has reported in recent weeks that “intelligence reports” from Kenya  had indicated that Obama had been born there, and a criminal investigation has been ongoing since 2008 to discover how birth records dating between June 1, 1960 and December 31, 1961 had been altered or removed from official files.



On March 18, 2010, the Congressional Research Service issued another memorandum (hereinafter “CRS Memo 2”) further compounding the errors of the prior CRS Memo dated April 3, 2009.  CRS Memo 2, entitled “Birth Certificates of Presidential Candidates and Standing to Challenge Eligibility,” was authored by the same individual who authored the original CRS Memo, Mr. Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research Service, American Law Division.  The document can be accessed here.

First, the CRS Memo 2 is divided into three sections, a “Summary” section, a “Birth Certificate” section and a “Vetting of Candidates: Standing to Challenge” section.  The first and second sections, given the April 27, 2011 “release” by the White House of what now purports to be the putative president’s “original long-form Hawaiian birth certificate,” are of greater relevance than the third on “standing.”

Second, the CRS Memo 2, having been issued March 18, 2010, predates by some 13 months the April 27, 2011 release by the White House and Mr. Obama of what is now by them claimed to be his “original long form birth certificate” and, again, solely by the posting to the Internet of an image and not through the release of the “best evidence” of that portrayed by the image, the original, hard copy of the certified document.

Third, the CRS Memo 2 – inexplicably, given that the same author produced both memos – omits any reference whatsoever to the original April 3, 2009 CRS Memo, a most curious omission in light of the facts that the topics are the same, same attorney authored both memoranda, and they were issues a mere 11 months apart.  Moreover, CRS Memo 2 makes no mention of the Bilbray Transmittal. Recall that empty room… except for the elephant in the corner.

Fourth – and equally inexplicably, given the identity of authorship – the CRS Memo 2 makes no mention whatsoever of the cornerstone Supreme Court decision cited in the original CRS Memo from 2009, Perkins v. Elg.  That decision – as modified by ellipsis omission previously discussed – provided the core mechanism generating the conclusion that one needs only to be born “in” the United States, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the parents, to qualify as a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution.

Fifth, instead of addressing the issues within the same context as discussed in the original 2009 CRS Memo, relying on its “ellipsis adjusted” portrayal of the decision in Perkins v. Elg, CRS Memo 2 shifts its emphasis to a U.S. District Court decision, Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961).  The decision is cited for the proposition that even a “delayed issued” official birth certificate can be “prima facie evidence” of “natural-born citizenship,” once again, one of the more spectacular non sequiturs characterizing CRS Memo 2.

Each of these points will be addressed as follows.

CRS Memo 2 begins (p. 1) with an introductory paragraph by noting that the memorandum “… is submitted in response to congressional requests for a legal opinion concerning President Obama’s ‘birth certificate,’ and the question of legal standing to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate on the basis of the lack of ‘natural born’ citizenship.”  In the “Summary” section of the memo, it is then stated:

“As discussed in more detail in the following memorandum, the document officially certified by the State of Hawaii and ‘released’ for inspection by the Obama campaign in June of 2008 (and as expressly attested to by Hawaii public health officials), that is the Certification of Live Birth, is in fact a ‘birth certificate’ under uniform standards adopted in federal law for ‘identification-related documents’ [footnote 1, below].  As a public record of the State of Hawaii such documentation is required to be afforded ‘full faith and credit’ by all other states under the provisions of the United States Constitution and federal law.  (U.S. Const, [sic] Art. IV, § 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1739).  Since the officially certified document is prima facie evidence of United States birth and citizenship, and there appears to be no actual documentary evidence of any nature to the contrary, such certificate would most likely be deemed conclusive of ‘natural born’ citizenship by a state official or court if any such review were commenced or required.” [footnote 2, below].

[fn. 1, reading: “See P.L. 108-548, ‘Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,’ title VIII, § 7211(a), 118 Stat. 3825 (2004), amending P.L. 104-208, Div. C, ‘Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,’ title VI, § 656, 110 Stat, 3009-716 (1996), now codified at 5 U.S.C. §  301, note.”]

[fn. 2, reading: “See, for example, Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961), where, in the absence of any foreign birth certificate or other official foreign documentation, the court found that an official state certificate, even one issued 46 years after birth, would establish ‘natural born’ citizenship”]

To begin with, the “Summary” section of the CRS Memo 2 asserts that, because Hawaii officials have “certified” that the image posted on the internet in 2008 was an official “birth certificate,” it would be required under the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, as well as federal statute, to be accepted by any other state official or in any other state court proceeding.  The federal law cited in support of that proposition in CRS Memo 2 is 28 U.S.C. § 1739.

Unfortunately, CRS Memo 2 omits mention – but without even the courtesy of an ellipsis signal to the reader – of certain relevant portions of 28 U.S.C. § 1739 in its effort to drive, much as in the original CRS Memo from 2009, its seemingly predetermined conclusion.  In fact, the entire first sentence of 28 U.S.C. § 1739 reads as follows:

“All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.” (Emphasis added)

As of March 18, 2010, when CRS Memo 2 was issued, the only “thing” that had been released for full inspection by the general public was an image of a Hawaiian certificate – purporting to have originated in Hawaii – posted on the Internet in 2008.  Indeed, CRS Memo 2 cites as proof of this the internet web address: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.htmlSee CRS Memo 2 at p. 2, n. 7.  Interestingly, the author of CRS Memo 2 places quotation marks around the word “released” in the footnote, perhaps in recognition that the only “thing” made generally available in 2008 was an image rather than the original or “hard” piece of paper.  This website is also included in the materials accompanying the Bilbray Transmittal, explaining, purportedly, how questions swirling around Mr. Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility “… were ultimately resolved.”

To begin with, any first-year law student knows that an Internet image of a birth certificate would not be admissible as evidence of the birth it purports to document or prove in any court of the land, because it is not the “original” or “best evidence.”  And a refusal to produce the original “best evidence” in one’s possession is no excuse for presenting an Internet image as an acceptable substitute.

It would be as if, for example, someone appeared with a laptop computer or iPhone at the passport office and pulled up a posted image of a document claiming it to be the person’s birth certificate.  To grossly understate the point, it would be highly unlikely that the passport agent would agree to issue the requested document based on that display alone.  Yet this is what the American public is being asked to do with respect to the images purporting to establish Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility.

More importantly, at least insofar as the CRS Memo 2 reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1739 is concerned, without the additional “… certificate of a judge … or of the Governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal… that said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers…,” it would not be admissible according to the plain terms of the statute itself.

Indeed, even the document recently “released” (albeit confined, as was the 2008 image, to the Internet) by the White House on April 27, 2011 would not be admissible in evidence absent the required additional certificate required under the statute.  Look for just such a letter from newly-elected (and Democrat/Obama-supporter) Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie as soon as this omission is brought to their attention.

Moreover, the CRS Memo 2 asserts (see fn. 8) that “[in] addition to the express attestation on the document that the certificate is a ‘true copy’ of the contemporaneous birth records maintained on file, official personnel of the State of Hawaii verbally indicated that such records were on file at the Department of Health, and show birth in Hawaii as certified…,” thereafter citing certain newspaper articles and Internet websites as sources for that statement.  However, as usual, the memo is misleading in this respect.

When the memo asserts that the attestation confirms that the document is a “true copy,” that is not what the full attestation states.  As noted on the reverse side of the 2008 image of the document posted on the Internet by Mr. Obama’s team (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html), the actual attestation by the State Registrar, Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., is this: “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawaii State Department of Health.” (Emphasis added).  There is no language in the attestation that the copy accurately reflects the “contemporaneous” records generated at the time of birth.  If anything, it reflects only the “contemporary” record “or abstract” of records then present when the certification was affixed, i.e., June 6, 2007.

An “abstract” is not an “original,” but is a truncated “synopsis” of an original.  It is defined in the online Webster’s “English Learner’s Dictionary” as “a brief written statement of the main points or facts in a longer report, speech, etc.” (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/abstract). Under this definition, the alteration of certain seemingly innocuous facts (e.g., the name of the birth hospital, the name of the delivering physician or the name of the country of the father’s birth) is more easily accomplished than if an actual copy of an “original,” non-abstracted document is examined.

The only way of knowing what, exactly, the original of a document says is by examining the document itself.  A proffered image or abstract of the document is proof of nothing, other than, perhaps, ulterior motives.  And yet, that is what was offered in 2008 and accepted as sufficient in CRS Memo 2.

Interestingly, as previously noted here (http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/27/has-the-white-house-has-released-obamas-long-from-birth-certificate/), the so-called “Nordyke Twins’” original (non-computer generated) birth certificates, created and issued in close proximity in time to the image of the one posted in 2008 by (or on behalf of) the putative president, contain the following full attestation at the bottom of both documents: “This certifies that the above is a true and correct copy of the original record on file in the Research, Planning and Statistics Office Hawaii State Department of Health.” (Emphasis added).

On the other hand, both the 2008 image and the 2011 image of documents purporting to reveal Mr. Obama’s birth data do not contain that language, but substitute, instead, Alvin T. Onaka’s statement that the documents are either a “true copy” or “an abstract” of another record.  No explanation has been forthcoming for this anomaly.

Next, since the CRS Memo 2 predates by 13 months the April 27, 2011 “disclosure” by the White House of an Internet image of what is now claimed to be Obama’s “original long-form Hawaiian birth certificate,” virtually all of the reliance it places on the purported “fact” that the image of the “short-form” birth certificate in 2008 was all that we would ever see on the topic, and that therefore, that was enough to legitimize it as an “official record” entitled to full faith and credit of its verbiage regarding its contents, is now eviscerated.  The “revised story” will no doubt now be that the Internet image of this “newly-discovered” long-form and purported “original birth certificate” can be substituted as “the last word.”  Not so fast.

Apart from the fact that there are literally dozens of new questions raised by the image, the notion that the image itself puts to rest the question of presidential eligibility – including the eligibility of the present occupant of the office – is nonsense.  Any yet, that is precisely what is being peddled as the truth by the repository of the “nation’s best thinking.”

As for the fact that CRS Memo 2 fails to make any reference at all to the original CRS Memo of April 3, 2009, the only word coming close to describing that blatant omission is: “bizarre.”  In light of the fact that both memoranda have sections specifically dedicated to addressing the issue of what, purportedly, constitutes a “natural born citizen,” the lack of an explanation for same simply invites more scrutiny.

First, one reason might lie in the shifting reliance in CRS Memo 2 away from the Supreme Court decision which formed the core of the “conclusion” in the original 2009 CRS Memo, Perkins v. Elg, to a different “core” decision, this time from a U.S. District Court: Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961).  However, why the same author of a more recent memorandum on the “native born citizen” issue would exchange reliance on a U.S. Supreme Court decision for reliance on a federal district court (essentially, trial court) decision is unknown, yet it is a fact.

Adding to the mystery of why CRS Memo 2 makes no mention whatsoever of the original CRS Memo is the circumstance that the original April 3, 2009 document specifically cites Liacakos in secondary support of its conclusions. See CRS Memo at 12, n. 60.  Since the second memo was authored by the same lawyer and cited the same case, one would have expected at least a passing reference to the first memo.

For reasons detailed, post, the trial court ruling in Liacakos is likely wrong because of the trial judge’s apparent misapprehension of the facts.  Thus, any reliance on the case to support the claimed “Maskell-engineered” ruling in Perkins v. Elg, the cornerstone of the original CRS Memo, is misplaced.

Although Elg has been cited or mentioned in at least 100 reported cases since it was decided in 1939, the decision in Liacakos has been cited favorably only 5 times, and mentioned only twice, but in no instance for the core proposition claimed for the case in the CRS Memo 2, i.e., that “… in the absence of any foreign birth certificate or other foreign documentation, the court found that an official state [birth] certificate, even one issued 46 years after birth, would establish ‘natural born’ citizenship.”  See CRS Memo 2, at 1, fn. 2.  To put it bluntly: no it did not.

And, as pointed out here (http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/03/regarding-natural-born-citizenship/), while the Constitution requires that eligibility to the presidency requires the person to be a “natural born Citizen,” there is no such animal as “natural born citizenship.”  The term seems to have been created from whole cloth by the author of CRS Memo 2.

The CRS Memo 2 thus commits the same analytical “error” (there may be other terms to describe what is going on here) as was committed in the original 2009 CRS Memo, specifically, advancing the claim that a “delayed certificate” as was issued in the case of Mr. Liacakos, would in and of itself establish “natural born citizenship.”  No it won’t.   CRS Memo 2 proceeds on the assumption that, because the judge there held that the person was born “in” the United States and was, as the person claimed, a “natural born citizen,” the case supports the conclusion – much like that announced in the unmentioned original 2009 CRS Memo – that even if the certificate was delayed by 46 years, it purportedly “… would establish ‘natural born’ citizenship” (assuming, again, that such a constitutional concept existed).

That conclusion cannot be sustained under the language of Liacakos.  Although the judge there did, in fact, state (195 F. Supp. at 634) that “… the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States, and the Court so holds…,” the fact is that the trial court judge (Judge Alexander Holtzoff) was likely mistaken because, had that decision been appealed (for whatever reason, then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy determined not to do so), the likelihood is that a reversal would have resulted.

The reversal would likely have centered on the fact that the same body of evidence used by the trial court judge to conclude that a delayed certificate for Mr. Liacakos established his birth “in” Wheeling, West Virginia and that there was no evidence of a foreign birth certificate also established that Mr. Liacakos was not and could not have been a natural born citizen.

This is because, as conceded by Judge Holtzoff  (195 F. Supp. at 633): “There is a certificate from the Mayor of Cythion [Greece] to the effect that plaintiff’s name is carried on the Males Register of the Municipality as having been born in America of Greek citizen parents….” (Emphasis added).  Thus, while Mr. Liacakos was, under the Wong Kim Ark case, a native born citizen, by definition he could not have been under the reasoning of § 212 of The Law of Nations or § 212 of the Lord Chief Justice of England’s work “Nationality,” a “natural born citizen.”

Accordingly, the reliance placed by CRS Memo 2 on the decision in Liacakos is, at minimum, wildly misplaced because it attempts, as does the original CRS Memo, to conflate and equate a “native born citizen” with the much smaller subset of such citizens, the “natural born citizen.”  CRS Memo 2 then states (p. 3):

“The federal court in Liacakos v. Kennedy found that with no official foreign contemporaneous documentation, even a ‘delayed birth certificate’ produced by the plaintiff [i.e., Mr. Liacakos], issued by the State of West Virginia 46 years after the alleged birth there, would provide prima facie evidence of ‘natural born citizenship.’[sic] That prima facie evidence, un-rebutted by any official foreign documentation, along with collateral evidence of self-assumed and asserted U.S. citizenship, would thus be conclusive and establish ‘natural born’ status by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence.’ [fn.19, below]. In the case of President Obama, rather than any actual contrary documentary evidence, there have instead been several ‘theories,’ allegations, rumors, and self-generated ‘doubts’ and ‘questions’ concerning the place and circumstances of President Obama’s birth which, as noted in court decisions, have been posted on the Internet and ‘television news tabloid[s],’ and upon which several of the lawsuits were based.” [fn. 20 omitted]

[fn. 19, reading: “195 F. Supp. at 634.”]

First, as previously noted, there is no such thing as “natural born citizenship.”  It is a hypothetical, conceptual term concocted by the author of CRS Memo 2 found nowhere in Liacakos v. Kennedy.  How, therefore, the judge in that case could be deemed to have “found” that the delayed Liacakos birth certificate provided prima facie evidence of a concocted concept not even present in the opinion remains obscure.

Second, so-called “prima facie” evidence “…is a minimum quantity.  It is that which is enough to raise a presumption of fact … [or] it is that which is sufficient, when unrebutted, to establish the fact.” Mah Toi v. Brownell, 219 F.2d 642, 644 (9th Cir.1955).  Presumptions of fact, in turn, have been called “… the bats of the law, flitting in the twilight, but disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts.”  Mockowick v. Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co., 196 Mo. 550, 94 S.W. 256, 262 (1906).  As long as only Internet images of documents, rather than the documents themselves, are made available for analysis, those images will remain Mr. Obama’s eligibility “bats, flitting in the twilight,” with no sunshine in the forecast.

Finally, in what can only be described as a shining monument to hypocritical thought, CRS Memo 2 replicates the tactics of the prior Bilbray Transmittal by denigrating challenges to the legitimacy of the putative president’s claims – or more precisely, the claims of Mr. Obama’s sycophants – that he is eligible to the office as a natural born citizen because, among other things, they were posted on the Internet.

And yet neither CRS Memo 2 nor the CRS Bilbray Transmittal seemingly finds any problem at all with elevating the Internet-posted image of the 2008 document – then purporting to be the “only birth certificate” available – as ending the debate.  One is reminded of the rules established by Comrade Napoleon the Pig in Orwell’s “Animal Farm”:  “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”  Or, in the CRS lexicon: “All images posted by Obama supporters on the Internet must be accepted, but all images or postings challenging or questioning them must be rejected.”

Accordingly, the CRS Memo 2 as well as the CRS Bilbray Transmittal both suffer from all of the infirmities of the original CRS Memo, with additional ones of their own.  If this is an example of the best that can be expected from the repository of “the nation’s best thinking…,” we are in deep, deep… deep trouble.


Who knows?  That which is clear, however, demonstrates that there are far more questions than answers generated by the original CRS Memo, the Bilbray Transmittal and their spawn, CRS Memo 2.  These irregularities need to be investigated and divulged to the American people and a full congressional hearing should be launched immediately to review and examine what plainly appears to be the manipulated crafting of the original CRS Memo, the Bilbray Transmittal and CRS Memo 2, each seemingly engineered to “reach” a result rather than to examine a legitimate question in an objective and non-partisan fashion.

Granted, if there are simple explanations for the “irregularities” identified in the CRS Memo and CRS Memo 2, as well as in the Bilbray Transmittal, they should be easily provided by the CRS itself, then corrected documents could be printed and redistributed to the members of Congress to whom the originals were sent.  Then again, given the stakes… maybe not.

But just remember the words of two additional famous Englishmen other than William Blackstone or Sherlock Holmes: John Locke and Edmund Burke.

Locke gave us this: “Where law ends, tyranny begins.”

Burke likely did not use these precise words, but they have evolved in his name: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”




Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Dumb and Dumber CRS Memo and Congress Make Stupid on Obama Q part II


    Jack Maskell Memorandum issued to Congress by CRS – Congressional Research Service – on the Obama Eligibility question proves the omission and manipulation of case law of the U.S. Supreme Court was used to pull the wool over Congress regarding the Qualifications of Obama in Part 2 of this Lion’s Den Show with host Cody Robert Judy.

    As per the part 2 edition from the one posted a couple of comments ago. There’s also a link that combines them on YouTube. Boy I wish I was a U.S. Senator calling a hearing and furious about being fed the pack of deception. Sure wish we had some Reps and Sen. with a little fortitude towards their oaths.
    Cody Robert Judy

  2. Ms. Rondeau and Mr. DeMaio, re ‘And, as pointed out here (http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/03/regarding-natural-born-citizenship/), while the Constitution requires that eligibility to the presidency requires the person to be a “natural born Citizen,” there is no such animal as “natural born citizenship.” ‘

    I am filled with both pride and humility that you felt my essay on the terms “natural born citizen” and “natural born citizenSHIP” was worthy enough for you to use it as a reference in your own excellent work.

    Thanks for that and for taking the time to relate the story of the two damning CRS Memos in such a way that the extent of the Obama eligibility conspiracy can be understood by all.

  3. Dumb and Dumber- The CRS Memorandum and Congress on Obama Eligibility
    Part 1.

    Listen to the 5 Vetting Hurdles Obama cleared and see how Congress through the Jack Maskell Memo was deceived into letting the qualification of “natural born citizen” slide into the mud of the 14th Amendment. This is Dumb and Dumber- The CRS Memo and Congress today on The Lion’s Den Show with host Cody Robert Judy.

  4. Although on a bit of a different subject, I’d urge everyone to write/contact their Congressmen as well as any newspapers that have Letters to the Editor sections and/or radio/TV stations to ask why they do not have coverage of the submission to the FBI by Donald Vogt of the criminal complaint about Obama’s document fraud – the White House Birth Certificate.

    Should the FBI investigate this submission (made in both Honolulu and DC), it would be a VERY quick way to solidly prove Barkey is not a nbC if Kapiolani does not have an exactly matching real BC on file. After that the HI DOH could be investigated (but Barkey would already be in deep doo-doo).

    The FBI will do nothing without a reasonable amount of pressure being brought to bear … so here’s your chance to genuinely help your country!! Howsabout some help for Doug in kicking off the investigation???

  5. Great Information.. Congress may have to scrabble on this one. What a shame that the Law of Nations was left out. To tell you the truth it seems Maskell Memorandum is or will become simply a fall boy, because of the obvious dictates of the Constitution ‘ unless a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution’, which seems very clear to me. The word “Citizen” differentiated right there from “Natural Born Citizen” which became the requirements after all who were simple citizens passed on who were alive during the adoption. If Congress quits using the Constitution for any Memorandum, we are in trouble and they are in violation of their oaths.
    Thank you Post & Email

    At the end of this video is a lead in on CRS Memorandum. Let’s blow the whistle on this!

    Cody Robert Judy

    1. ‘Native’ = of the place

      ‘Natural’ = of the blood, of the parents

      The framers knew precisely the difference.

      The framers chose ‘natural’ in the POTUS eligibility clause of Article II

      Had the framers sought to have anyone born ‘native’ as eligible for office of POTUS, they would have said ‘native’.

      It was no accident or mis-use of words on the part of the framers, it was deliberate and intentional to use the word ‘natural’ & it is absurd to propose the framers would be derelict in their imperative to secure and protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion and claim.

  6. The “forger” who created the Obama Certificate of Live Birth must be in grave danger right now, because those who know the inner working of Obama are probably way too dangerous to leave around. Homosexual – Donald Young, the Choirmaster at Obama’s ‘old’ church, was murdered, to keep him quiet; also Lt. Harris knew something that signed his death warrant? See following clip… http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/. It will surly all come out, no matter how many people are murdered. THE BIG BALL IS ROLLING NOW. Soon there will be people jumping out of the woodwork and racing forward trying desperately to save their treasonous a****.

  7. Now that we know that these memos have been sent to Congress to allow them plausible deniability-then has there been any counter effort to advise Congress that these same memos are erroneous? If they are laboring under a false premise-they are going to continue to do so-unless convinced otherwise.

  8. Cut, dried and hung out but as stated, “given the stakes, maybe not”. What would occur if a hearing established more than ineligibility by uncovering deliberate fraud? As Judge Carter speculated, the government would be decapitated in short order as that fraud would be not just limited to a handful of congressional members who invented supporting documents. The investigation may well turn into a crisis where continuity of government, coincidentally also a danger investigated by the 108th congress resulting in a law to effect what an amendment ought to, requiring immediate elections be carried out. This all amid fears stoked by the radical left which would riot in an attempt to overthrow the government. I dare say that it would be a shame upon our nation to submit to the same danger it was born of without firing a shot. Worse yet, it will not suffer this coup much longer given the patriotic fervor of the majority and their awakening to this despicable lot’s intentions as they kick dirt in our faces daily.

    1. The vast majority of the military (active/vets/retired) are on our (Constitutionalists, if you will) side. Any attempt of coup by “progressives” would be extremely short-lived.

  9. Maskell needs to be brought before a grand jury to explain his obvious and deliberate attempt to deceive the members of Congress. If the CRS is a primary source of information for our elected leaders it must be held to a very high standard of truth and accuracy.

    I’ll be calling my congressman today to ask him if presentation of fraudulent documents (Obama birth certificate) or lying to Congress (CRS memos) are still considered to be serious offenses.

    If I get a bunch of hem-hawing, I will ask for an answer in writing so that I’ll know when such activities are acceptable. Such information could be very valuable to baseball players or persons such as Scooter Libby.

    1. I would ask why no members of Congress have called him out on this lying report. Were they all stupid enough to believe this stuff.

      1. They may or may not believe the stuff…but, they welcomed something to take the heat off of them. A source to credit, or blame, that required no research on their part and provided them with an out when the stuff hits the fan.

        Congress is worthless.

  10. Hinting towards delayed filing for a bc by the Dunhams?

    …”The decision is cited for the proposition that even a “delayed issued” official birth certificate can be “prima facie evidence” of “natural-born citizenship,” once again, one of the more spectacular non sequiturs characterizing CRS Memo 2.”

  11. This is an excellent legal analysis of the second CRS memo 2, and nails down the interesting manner in which Maskell has done his best to nail down a slow-moving target and blow legal smoke in the eyes of most readers. I have seen for a fact that most Congressional members simply rely on such CRS memos, even though many members are attorneys, as it is first of all easier to say that the CRS is not going to lie or mislead Congress, and has had a general reputation in the past for giving Congress legitimate information when it was needed regarding specific issues. Members of Congress have a clear tendency to just use CRS memos as the basis of their position letters to constituents, as they generally claim to be too busy to really read the law and bills, etc. If they can refer to a CRS memo, they will do so to cover their own tails. As a result of many years of CRS memos, and the above typical conduct by most members of Congress, this appears to be a well-thought-out plan to use a CRS attorney to literally bend case law and the Constitution in all directions, to make it fit the prior objective of issuing an official CRS memo for members to use regarding all questions about Obama’s eligibility. I feel Mr. De Maio has done an outstanding job of breaking down CRS memos 1 and 2. While I read every detail, and understand the CRS objective, and the twisting in the wind of Jack Maskell, my concern is this is way over the head of most of the general public (no offense meant at all), as it is over the head of most members of Congress. Maybe the better statement to make is that it is likely not over the head of most members of Congress who are attorneys, but it is just far easier for them to use a CRS memo to rush out a position letter than to spend a few hours and read the law and the Constitution, and get the correct facts. Friends, members of Congress may have impressive credentials, including law degrees from Ivy League schools, but that does not mean they are smart, or fully informed. Also, what is of great concern to me is Obama is running again in 2012 as if nothing has changed and there is no NBC problem. Even well-known “conservative” media just discuss it as if there is no NBC problem and focus on who can beat him. I find it just shocking and sad how this was pulled off in America with the full support of the MSM, and people in high and powerful positions. Citizens in every single state must demand that their Secretary of State insist on proof of NBC, and that has to be in the form of the “best evidence” available, which is a hard copy of the LFBC in Hawaii for Obama, (if a real one even exists), and his SSA card, and an opportunity for any citizen of each state to examine same if they so desire, not just read some certification that the SOS saw it and it is ok. This will only happen if we demand it as a group, and be aggressive, just as the opposition and those who support Obama have been to date. Also, putting mass pressure on each state to pass specific “eligibility bills” is crucial, so SOSs cannot say that is not part of their job requirement, as many have done to date. God bless America.

    1. Another interesting detail is that memos on eligibility are not normal in the Congress and CRS does not produce memos like this for every president. The fact that it was produced for this president indicates that there was a need for well placed smoke and mirrors in the Congress. Who ordered these memos? Who instructed him what needs to be emphasized? It is unlikely that Maskell wrote them on his own volition.

      1. Great question, Tim. I was going to ask the same thing if no one else did.

        I think it’s imperative that we find out who prompted Maskell to write such a convoluted pair of memos. I suspect we all would be familiar with the person’s name; and, I would not be altogether surprised to find that it was a Republican…

    2. “While I read every detail, and understand the CRS objective, and the twisting in the wind of Jack Maskell, my concern is this is way over the head of most of the general public (no offense meant at all), as it is over the head of most members of Congress. ”

      Since you brought it up, I’m one of those whose heads this flies over. (And I’m not offended.) I’ve been reading the comments following the three or four parts of this expose to pick up what I can and also to see if anyone has asked for a dummied-down and perhaps even summarized version.

      1. I was thinking the same thing — a summary version, especially of the court cases which were referenced incorrectly (such as the parents of Elg being aliens, when in fact they were citizens).

      2. Allow me to offer my “dummied-down” and very brief summarized version.

        The CRS Memos are a fraud in and of themselves because they were based upon an online digital image of Obama’s short-form “Certification of Live Birth” (“sfCOLB”), three visually disparate versions of which were posted during 2008, not one of which had a legible embossed seal of the “STATE OF HAWAII * DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH”, not one of which the Department of Hawaii Home Lands would accept as prima-facie (sole and sufficient) documentation of birth in Hawaii and not one of which the U.S. State Department Passport Division would accept as prima-facie documentation of U.S. citizenship. Therefore, the CRS’s basis for its memos is null and void.