Experts: Registrar stamps confirm Obama forgery

[PartyTime]

It doesn't. We're not talking about appointee of the President. We are talking about the appointees of an UNLAWFUL President. Just because YOU say he is unlawful does not make it true.If it is UNLAWFUL then nothing they sign can nor will it stand. If you are UNLAWFUL you have no lawful authority to do anything. Wrong again. Please look up the Defacto Officer Doctrine before you look sillier. Even IF you got your wish and he was proven to be ineligible...NOTHING HE SIGNED and NO ONE HE APPOINTED would change.

Again, you do not know what you are talking about. And I don't say he is unlawful just because I say he is, He IS unlawful which is clearly evidenced by all the history written on the subject. The ONLY thing that can ever change that is for the Supreme Court to hear the case and make a specific ruling on the meaning of natural born citizen. All the history clearly shows based on written documents and books that he is not a natural born citizen. ONLY the Supreme Court can decide now and until they do this issue will remain unresolved. And again, IF he was found to be not elegible EVERYTHING he signed and EVERYONE he appointed would all have to be undone because ANYTHING he did acting in the capacity of POTUS was ALL done UNLAWFULLY!

No defacto officer doctrine can trump the constitution. The constitution trumps any defacto officer doctrine. It would not and does not apply in this type of case no matter how much you choose to think it does.

[ajskj]

It doesn't. We're not talking about appointee of the President. We are talking about the appointees of an UNLAWFUL President. Just because YOU say he is unlawful does not make it true.If it is UNLAWFUL then nothing they sign can nor will it stand. If you are UNLAWFUL you have no lawful authority to do anything. Wrong again. Please look up the Defacto Officer Doctrine before you look sillier. Even IF you got your wish and he was proven to be ineligible...NOTHING HE SIGNED and NO ONE HE APPOINTED would change.

Again, you do not know what you are talking about. And I don't say he is unlawful just because I say he is, He IS unlawful which is clearly evidenced by all the history written on the subject. Wrong again.He is not unlawful and the only thing you have is your sayso.The ONLY thing that can ever change that is for the Supreme Court to hear the case and make a specific ruling on the meaning of natural born citizen. Nope. The commonly accepted definition is fine.All the history clearly shows based on written documents and books that he is not a natural born citizen.Not at all...history proves that no one else thinks as you do....and nothing in law, statute, the Constitution, or precedent support your theory. ONLY the Supreme Court can decide now and until they do this issue will remain unresolved.It is resolved. And again, IF he was found to be not elegible EVERYTHING he signed and EVERYONE he appointed would all have to be undone because ANYTHING he did acting in the capacity of POTUS was ALL done UNLAWFULLY! Wrong again. the Defacto Officer Doctrine.

No defacto officer doctrine can trump the constitution. It doesn't. There is nothing IN the Constitution that says a presidents appointees will be removed if he is ineligible.The constitution trumps any defacto officer doctrine.Yes, it does...however, it does not disagree with it. It would not and does not apply in this type of case no matter how much you choose to think it does.Nice try...but you are wrong again.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence. Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995).

[PartyTime]

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence. Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995).

Do you even comprehend this? This has nothing to do with unlawful laws passed. This has to do with everyone coming back suing for damages because of their defacto status. You wouldn't be able to go sue the government for any damages caused to you by any laws he passed that he was not lawfully allowed to sign into law. It has nothing to do with the unlawful laws he passed. The constitution is clear! Only the POTUS can sign any bill into law. Only a natural born citizen can be POTUS. If he was found to not be elegible everything he signed into law is null and void and everyone he appointed is removed because he was never constitutionally elegible in the first place. You just can't file lawsuits against him or any of the people he appointed for any thing they did while they were in office. It doesn't allow for unlawful laws to remain. This has also been established by the best known constitutional lawyers there are. I think they know just a little more about this than you do and whoever posted this on some blog somewhere. And especially coming from someone that is under the illusion corporations do not have income! LOL

There would be no need for any suits to be filed for the unlawful laws, they just become null and void on their face and would not be enforceable on anyone. But if you were damaged in some way as a result of anything he did while illegally in office you could not sue the government over it.

There is a group of people in California that are going back and recovering money they were out from rulings on judges that have been recently discover the judges had no authority to enforce. And they are collecting on it! So much much for you defacto garbage.

[ajskj]

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence. Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995).

Do you even comprehend this? This has nothing to do with unlawful laws passed. Yes, it does.

de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person ....signing a bill into law is an ACT>

This has to do with everyone coming back suing for damages because of their defacto status. You wouldn't be able to go sue the government for any damages caused to you by any laws he passed that he was not lawfully allowed to sign into law. It has nothing to do with the unlawful laws he passed. Wrong again de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person The constitution is clear! Only the POTUS can sign any bill into law. Only a natural born citizen can be POTUS. If he was found to not be elegible everything he signed into law is null and void and everyone he appointed is removed because he was never constitutionally elegible in the first place.No, hun. You are wrong. It confers VALIDITY on the laws he signs. PERIOD. You just can't file lawsuits against him or any of the people he appointed for any thing they did while they were in office. It doesn't allow for unlawful laws to remain.Read it again. confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official titleThis has also been established by the best known constitutional lawyers there are.That you FAIL to name...AGAIN...ROFLOL. I think they know just a little more about this than you do and whoever posted this on some blog somewhere.LOOK it up for your self, hun And especially coming from someone that is under the illusion corporations do not have income! LOLWhere did THAT come from??

There would be no need for any suits to be filed for the unlawful laws, they just become null and void on their face and would not be enforceable on anyone. But if you were damaged in some way as a result of anything he did while illegally in office you could not sue the government over it.

There is a group of people in California that are going back and recovering money they were out from rulings on judges that have been recently discover the judges had no authority to enforce. And they are collecting on it! So much much for you defacto garbage.

BLAH BLAH BLAH........you are getting boring now.You keep claiming things have happened without any proof or evidence. Run along now.

Edited July 26, 2011 by ajskj

[PartyTime]

Well you obviuosly can't comprehend simple english because it means nothing what you think it does.

The case cited has to do be able able SUE over this. It has nothing to do with saying anything they did gets to stand as if it were vaild. Only that YOU can't SUE over it!

[ajskj]

Well you obviuosly can't comprehend simple english because it means nothing what you think it does.

The case cited has to do be able able SUE over this. It has nothing to do with saying anything they did gets to stand as if it were vaild. Only that YOU can't SUE over it!

ROFLMAOAY!! It has NOTHING to so with being sued.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence. Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995).

The case cited has to do be able able SUE over this. It has nothing to do with saying anything they did gets to stand as if it were vaild.

Do you have ANY idea what the words CONFER VALIDITY mean???

[PartyTime]

ROFLMAOAY!! It has NOTHING to so with being sued.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence. Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995).

The case cited has to do be able able SUE over this. It has nothing to do with saying anything they did gets to stand as if it were vaild.

Do you have ANY idea what the words CONFER VALIDITY mean???

“The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question

MEANS YOU CANNOT SUE OVER THIS!

Edited July 26, 2011 by PartyTime

[ajskj]

Keep trying.

De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

The following is case law defining the term De Facto Officer. “An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:

http://definitions.u...-facto-officer/

Game....set....match.

Edited July 26, 2011 by ajskj

[Markinsa]

Let's see who can use the Biggest Fonts, even though that's against the rules too! Let's just say you two disagree and let this drop?

-

[PartyTime]

ROFLMAOAY!! It has NOTHING to so with being sued.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence. Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995).

The case cited has to do be able able SUE over this. It has nothing to do with saying anything they did gets to stand as if it were vaild.

Do you have ANY idea what the words CONFER VALIDITY mean???

If you are going to cite a case you should READ the case to understand the context of the case and not just take a little piece of it and try to change the meaning of the ruling.

Here!

You left this part of the cast out!

While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

[ajskj]

If you are going to cite a case you should READ the case to understand the context of the case and not just take a little piece of it and try to change the meaning of the ruling.

Here!

You left this part of the cast out!

While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.

The office of the president does not exist??? RoFLOL....

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Sorry....nothing he has signed is unconstitutional...And so would not be considered invalid.

Nice try though..

Let's see who can use the Biggest Fonts, even though that's against the rules too! Let's just say you two disagree and let this drop?

FONTS are against the rule?? Really??

Didn't know.

-

[Jaxinjersey]

Let's see who can use the Biggest Fonts, even though that's against the rules too! Let's just say you two disagree and let this drop?

-

I say... let 'em keep going! Never stifle, censor, or shut down debate. The fair exchange in the free-market of opinion and thought must prevail to decide the outcome!!!

[PartyTime]

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Sorry....nothing he has signed is unconstitutional...And so would not be considered invalid.

If he his unconstitutional everything he does while usurping the office he is not constitutionally elegible to hold is all unconstitutional.

You should go read the entire case, it covers a lot more on this, but you won't like it because you can't handle the truth and all you can do is try to take snippets from a case and the twist what it says into your own fabrication that has nothing at all to do with what you would like it to mean by taking it completely out of context.

You lose! Again!

Tell us more about how a corporation can't have income! LOL

Edited July 26, 2011 by PartyTime

[Markinsa]

FONTS are against the rule?? Really??

Didn't know.

Font Restrictions:

• Do NOT use excessively large font sizes, as it is considered to be "shouting" and will be edited back down to the default size by the moderators

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1114-updated-11232010-dinarvetscom-forum-rules/#ixzz1TB5qsOgr

I say... let 'em keep going! Never stifle, censor, or shut down debate. The fair exchange in the free-market of opinion and thought must prevail to decide the outcome!!!

As long as they keep it Respectful, which they are doing a VERY Good Job of. OK!

[ajskj]

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Sorry....nothing he has signed is unconstitutional...And so would not be considered invalid.

If he his unconstitutional everything he does while usurping the office he is not constitutionally elegible to hold is all unconstitutional.

Nope. Under the Defacto Officer Doctrine, you are wrong...again.

You should go read the entire case, it covers a lot more on this, but you won't like it because you can't handle the truth and all you can do is try to take snippets from a case and the twist what it says into your own fabrication that has nothing at all to do with what you would like it to mean by taking it completely out of context.

ROFLOL!! A doctrine is not a CASE. A doctrine is what they rely on to SETTLE a case.

You lose! Again! Um..nope. Haven't lost yet. But you haven't been able to comprehend ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE...

The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

Tell us more about how a corporation can't have income! LOL

What the HECK are you babbling about now???

[Markinsa]

You lose! Again!

Did you really need to add that? Com'on keep it civil.

-

[PartyTime]

Nope. Under the Defacto Officer Doctrine, you are wrong...again. Nope. Go read the case you cited.

You should go read the entire case, it covers a lot more on this, but you won't like it because you can't handle the truth and all you can do is try to take snippets from a case and the twist what it says into your own fabrication that has nothing at all to do with what you would like it to mean by taking it completely out of context.

ROFLOL!! A doctrine is not a CASE. A doctrine is what they rely on to SETTLE a case. You cited this specific case along with this doctrine, which the ruling in the case says different. An unconstitutional act cannot stand, ir is null and void. Go READ the case. YOU cited it! LOL

You lose! Again! Um..nope. Haven't lost yet. But you haven't been able to comprehend ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE... I understand completely. You take everything out of context and twist its meanings and you didn't even bother to read the case YOU cited! It clearly states the opposite of your argument. YOU cited that case, not me! LOL

The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding. Again, go READ your case YOU cited! The Supreme Court says otherwise!

Tell us more about how a corporation can't have income! LOL

What the HECK are you babbling about now???

In another topic you stated corporations do not pay taxes on income, people do. LOL

[ajskj]

Nope. Under the Defacto Officer Doctrine, you are wrong...again. Nope. Go read the case you cited.

You should go read the entire case, it covers a lot more on this, but you won't like it because you can't handle the truth and all you can do is try to take snippets from a case and the twist what it says into your own fabrication that has nothing at all to do with what you would like it to mean by taking it completely out of context.

ROFLOL!! A doctrine is not a CASE. A doctrine is what they rely on to SETTLE a case. You cited this specific case along with this doctrine, which the ruling in the case says different. An unconstitutional act cannot stand, ir is null and void. Go READ the case. YOU cited it! LOL And AGAIN...nothing he has signed is unconstitutional...and under the Defacto officer Doctrine....just being INELIGIBLE does not make the laws he passed UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I CITED THE LEGAL DEFINITION. http://definitions.u...-facto-officer/ It does not agree with what you claim. The case that was cited BEFORE is one who relied on the DOCTRINE to make a decision. Again...a DOCTRINE is not a case. And no, the CASE does not disagree with the DOCTRINE it cites.

You lose! Again! Um..nope. Haven't lost yet. But you haven't been able to comprehend ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE... I understand completely. You take everything out of context and twist its meanings and you didn't even bother to read the case YOU cited! It clearly states the opposite of your argument. YOU cited that case, not me! LOL

Wrong again. It does not state the opposite of my argument...or of the DEFINITION I POSTED.

The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding. Again, go READ your case YOU cited! The Supreme Court says otherwise!

Nope. No matter HOW many times you claim a thing...it doesn't make it true when it ISN'T.

The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

It's the LEGAL DEFINITION of the Doctrine.

Tell us more about how a corporation can't have income! LOL

What the HECK are you babbling about now???

In another topic you stated corporations do not pay taxes on income, people do. LOL

No, I did not. Please stick to the truth.

Edited July 26, 2011 by ajskj

[Jaxinjersey]

Did you really need to add that? Com'on keep it civil.

-

Agreed! Comments like that, sarcasm, and condescending LMAO's simply diminish any substantive content... ahhh, the atrophy and fatigue settles in

[PartyTime]

It's the LEGAL DEFINITION of the Doctrine.

What the definition is and what the Supreme Court rules are two different things and the Supreme Ruling is law, not a definition. The definition does not apply in the case based on the Supreme Court ruling. The ruling is clear, anything unconstitional will not stand and regardless of any definition, it does not supercede the constitution which is the law of the land. You obviously still didn't bother reading the case. You need to read it and then you will see your arguement is wrong and would never hold up. Just because you say it or think otherwise doesn't not change the supreme court ruling. Again, go read the case. It says different.

No, I did not. Please stick to the truth.

My bad. I thought it was you. It was jkas and got that mixed up with you. Sorry about that.

Edited July 26, 2011 by PartyTime

[TPSprayduster]

It's the LEGAL DEFINITION of the Doctrine.

What the definition is and what the Supreme Court rules are two different things and the Supreme Ruling is law, not a definition. The definition does not apply in the case based on the Supreme Court ruling. The ruling is clear, anything unconstitional will not stand and regardless of any definition, it does not supercede the constitution which is the law of the land. You obviously still didn't bother reading the case. You need to read it and then you will see your arguement is wrong and would never hold up. Just because you say it or think otherwise doesn't not change the supreme court ruling. Again, go read the case. It says different.

No, I did not. Please stick to the truth.

My bad. I thought it was you. It was jkas and got that mixed up with you. Sorry about that.

LOL this is soo funny. 10 pages enough already!!!!

[kami]

Hey guys lets just do black ink on white paper. Give facts like below so we can truely debate or discuss. If you give facts then the others can come up with facts and dispute their facts so we can all see. A good example is this:

LET IT BE KNOWN that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, Barry/Barack Soebarkh and variations thereof, attained to the office of the U.S. Presidency in January 2009 without meeting the eligibility requirements of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, which mandates only a natural born citizen (one born of two U.S. citizen parents) is eligible to hold that office. Take note: None of the 535 members of Congress can hide behind the April 3, 2009 and March 18, 2010 propaganda hit pieces written by Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service, which twists and corrupts the natural born citizen definition in a transparent attempt to provide cover for the cowardly congressmen.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/31/presidential-eligibility-part-2/;

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/29/bombshell-second-crs-memo-covering-for-obamas-ineligibility-not-released-to-the-public-until-now/;

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/;

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html;

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm;

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/attorney-dr-herb-titus-born-in-hawaii.html;

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLawsuits.htm.

LET IT BE KNOWN that the media, including ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, FoxNews, et al, FAILED the American People and abrogated their Fourth Estate responsibilities by turning a deaf ear and blind eye to the nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance which apparently occurred during the whole of the 2008 election process, from the nomination to the election of the unvetted, ineligible Barack Hussein Obama.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-rapidly-achieving-his-goal.html;

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/drkates-platoon-takes-the-hill/;

http://daggle.com/journalist-not-blogger-654.

LET IT BE KNOWN that both the Republican and Democratic political parties FAILED in their obligation to vet Barack Hussein Obama prior to his nomination as the Democratic candidate for the office of U.S. President.

http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/;

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=225561;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcDQ0QaIhuc.

LET IT BE KNOWN that Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House and in her official position as Chair of the Democratic National Convention, in 2008 FAILED in her duty to the American People and her sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by issuing one certification for 49 states, which merely stated that Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Biden were “duly nominated” as the Democratic Party candidates for President and Vice President respectively; but for the STATE OF HAWAII, Nancy Pelosi did attest and declare to all by the Democratic Official Certification of Nomination that both Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Biden were “…legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” Why did Nancy Pelosi, in her capacity as the DNC Chair, provide one certification to Hawaii and a different one to the other 49 states?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30784035/DNC-Chairperson-Nancy-Pelosi-Issued-Signed-Two-Different-Certification-Forms-for-Obama-in-2008;

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109363;

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/certificate-of-nomination-summary/;

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2696896/posts;

LET IT BE KNOWN that all 50 Secretaries of State FAILED in their obligation to vet Barack Hussein Obama prior to his nomination as the Democratic candidate for the office of U.S. President.

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/south-dakotas-secretary-of-state-obamas.html;

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/texas-bill-birth-certificate-required-for-presidential-candidate-texas-secretary-of-state-obama-birth-certificate-lubbock-avalanche-journal/;

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=80931;

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/.

LET IT BE KNOWN that Vice President Richard Cheney, as President of the Senate, FAILED to request any objection to the electoral vote count on January 8, 2009, as required by U.S.C. Title 3, Section 15;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015—-000-.html: “…Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. …”.

LET IT BE KNOWN that just because there is no clear requirement stating a specific entity must ensure the eligibility of a candidate running for the U.S. presidency, that was no excuse for the 50 individual States, the Congress, or the Judiciary to abrogate their responsibility to American citizens by allowing an unvetted, ineligible person to be nominated, and then elected, to the U.S. presidency. The argument must be made that since no specific entity was required to ensure a candidate’s eligibility, then any appropriate investigative body could and should have performed that function! All branches of state and federal government FAILED the American people! Just because there is no specificity as to who should verify a candidate’s eligibility, that does not cancel the constitutional eligibility requirement! Additionally, LET IT BE KNOWN that the U.S. Senate passed S. Res. 511 declaring John McCain “a natural born citizen”, yet were totally silent on the more obvious question of Barack Obama’s citizenship status. Obama’s father was a Kenyan with allegiance to the British Crown and such allegiance passed on to his son, Barack Obama, at birth. So why didn’t Congress investigate how a man born subject to the British Crown could possibly be considered a requisite natural born citizen of the United States?

http://www.wnd.com/eligibility;

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/;

http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2010/11/congressional-report-obama-eligibility-unvetted/;

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88566;

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13304;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/17/supreme-court-accountablity/;

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd342.htm;

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/show.

LET IT BE KNOWN that U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 4, gives the definition for Misprision of Felony:

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” Every member of Congress, the Supreme Court, and all the judges handling all the Obama eligibility lawsuits were apprised numerous times of Obama’s felonious birth certificates, Social Security number, Selective Service Registration, et al, from American citizens. None of those officials can say they were uninformed. We have evidence that they were indeed informed, over and over again. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a report on August 16, 2010, outlining the use of taxpayer funds on government public relations and propaganda. The report states, “…Under one-party rule in 2009, the White House used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the President’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives…” Unlawful? Where is the investigation? Of course, using taxpayer funds unlawfully should be investigated. But aren’t releasing to the public a fraudulent Certification of Live Birth, misusing a Social Security number, and using a falsified Selective Service Registration felonious crimes? Where is the investigation, Congress?

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/28/misprision-of-felony-report-the-crime/;

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Misprision+of+felony;

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/20100816obamaadministrationpropagandareport.pdf.

WHEREAS, numerous lawsuits were initiated prior and subsequent to Barack Obama’s swearing in as the de facto president of the United States, We The People Demand the judiciary systems from the Circuit Courts, to the District Courts, to the Supreme Court and any pertinent Appeals Courts to adjudicate this matter of national security now and with all discovery, and cease from erecting the artificial “standing” barrier in the Peoples’ pursuit of justice. The Courts’ job is to adjudicate, so do it. The American People can withstand a Constitutional crisis; we cannot abide a usurper in Our White House! The “eligibility” lawsuits lay out the law and facts of this matter—

a. Mario Apuzzo, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/; http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm;

b. Philip Berg, http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/0.pdf; http://philjberg.com/; http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=philip+berg&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets;

c. Leo Donofrio, http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/; http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a407.htm;

d. Stephen Pidgeon, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84966.; http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-eligibility-challenger-stephen.html;

e. Orly Taitz; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/; http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=orly+taitz&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets;

f. United States Justice Foundation, http://usjf.net/;

g. Cort Wrotnowski, http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a469.htm.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama, unable to prove his eligibility under A1S2C5 of the U.S. Constitution to be the president, and having previously released several short-form birth certificates which were deemed fraudulent, released a long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011. It was examined minutely by numerous people and also declared fraudulent. We The People Demand the FBI, a Special Prosecutor, Congress, et al, initiate an investigation immediately and forensically examine said long form document!

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=299705;

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2010/05/14/fraud_in_the_usa_the_greatest_birth_certificate_fraud_in_history.thtml;

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/;

http://www.rightwire.net/2011/05/obamas-long-form-birth-cert-poor_02.html;

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/;

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama’s SSN was issued by the State of Connecticut, in which Obama never lived, and appears to be used by him fraudulently, We The People Demand the FBI, Special Prosecutor, Congress, Social Security Administration, et al, initiate an investigation immediately!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20976501/Neil-Sankey-Barack-Obama-Addresses-SS-Numbers;

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/calling-all-journalists-obamas-multiple.html;

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/obama-guilty-of-at-least-one-felony.html;

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261033;

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/;

http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/another_look_at_obamas.htm.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama’s Selective Service Registration has been examined and deemed to be fraudulent, We The People Demand the FBI, Special Prosecutor, Congress, Selective Service Registration, et al, initiate an investigation immediately!

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/08/are-there-multiple-records-of-obamas-selective-service-registration/;

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/;

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=156573;

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/DraftRegistration.htm.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama’s refusal to release documentation substantiating his eligibility to serve as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, an officer and Army physician, LtCol Terry Lakin, was deprived of justice and liberty, refused discovery and a right to defend himself at his court-martial for refusing to follow an order he had no assurance was legal, and was stripped of his benefits and imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

WHEREAS, American citizens have had enough of our elected representatives refusing to do their jobs, with every one of the 535 having failed us by ignoring the destruction and overthrow of our Constitutional Republic, know this: You have lost your mandate to govern us. You have lost our trust and respect. You have sold us and our Constitution down the river of political expediency. You have allowed your own cowardice and self-interest to drown out our concerns and demands. You have aided, abetted or allowed the looting of our taxpayer dollars from the U.S. treasury, and have allowed our money to be redistributed to bankers under phony programs such as TARP. You have ignored the Obama eligibility problem. Not one of you 535 congressional “leaders” has investigated the unvetted, ineligible poseur in our White House. Not one! Every last one of you has turned your back on us. Now we are turning our backs on you. If you continue to stonewall us and allow the complete destruction of our constitutional republic, know this: We are many. We are organized. We are indignant. We are angry. We will no longer be held hostage to your abrogation of duty and responsibility to us and our Constitution. We are hereby putting all 535 members of Congress on notice that We The People are committed to voting every last one of you out for your collective dereliction of duty in not investigating the many and serious issues about Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of president! And when you get back home, defeated and humiliated, you will have to live among those whom you betrayed. Ponder that.

THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND Congress call for an outside, non-government Special Prosecutor to immediately initiate an investigation of the man posing as the president, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to protect our national security, and support and defend our Constitution and the rights of the citizens of the United States of America!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58721290/Obama-Birth-Certificate-Final-Affidavit-of-Douglas-Vogt-June-24-2011-Total-of-9-items-now-listed

[ajskj]

It's the LEGAL DEFINITION of the Doctrine.

What the definition is and what the Supreme Court rules are two different things and the Supreme Ruling is law, not a definition. The definition does not apply in the case based on the Supreme Court ruling. The ruling is clear, anything unconstitional will not stand and regardless of any definition, it does not supercede the constitution which is the law of the land. You obviously still didn't bother reading the case. You need to read it and then you will see your arguement is wrong and would never hold up. Just because you say it or think otherwise doesn't not change the supreme court ruling. Again, go read the case. It says different.

Wrong again. The doctrine was CITED in the case. It was not refuted by it. The doctrine has been used in MANY SC court cases....all of whom have cited it. And no, nothing that was signed by Obama was unconstitutional, so your argument has no bearing.

The simple fact is that the DOCTRINE holds true...

The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

No, I did not. Please stick to the truth.

My bad. I thought it was you. It was jkas and got that mixed up with you. Sorry about that.

Wow kami....

LET IT BE KNOWN.......that's a lot of LIES in one post...

Edited July 26, 2011 by ajskj

[rtrusty]

Hey guys lets just do black ink on white paper. Give facts like below so we can truely debate or discuss. If you give facts then the others can come up with facts and dispute their facts so we can all see. A good example is this:

LET IT BE KNOWN that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, Barry/Barack Soebarkh and variations thereof, attained to the office of the U.S. Presidency in January 2009 without meeting the eligibility requirements of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, which mandates only a natural born citizen (one born of two U.S. citizen parents) is eligible to hold that office. Take note: None of the 535 members of Congress can hide behind the April 3, 2009 and March 18, 2010 propaganda hit pieces written by Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service, which twists and corrupts the natural born citizen definition in a transparent attempt to provide cover for the cowardly congressmen.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/31/presidential-eligibility-part-2/;

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/29/bombshell-second-crs-memo-covering-for-obamas-ineligibility-not-released-to-the-public-until-now/;

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/;

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html;

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm;

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/attorney-dr-herb-titus-born-in-hawaii.html;

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLawsuits.htm.

LET IT BE KNOWN that the media, including ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, FoxNews, et al, FAILED the American People and abrogated their Fourth Estate responsibilities by turning a deaf ear and blind eye to the nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance which apparently occurred during the whole of the 2008 election process, from the nomination to the election of the unvetted, ineligible Barack Hussein Obama.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-rapidly-achieving-his-goal.html;

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/drkates-platoon-takes-the-hill/;

http://daggle.com/journalist-not-blogger-654.

LET IT BE KNOWN that both the Republican and Democratic political parties FAILED in their obligation to vet Barack Hussein Obama prior to his nomination as the Democratic candidate for the office of U.S. President.

http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/;

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=225561;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcDQ0QaIhuc.

LET IT BE KNOWN that Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House and in her official position as Chair of the Democratic National Convention, in 2008 FAILED in her duty to the American People and her sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by issuing one certification for 49 states, which merely stated that Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Biden were “duly nominated” as the Democratic Party candidates for President and Vice President respectively; but for the STATE OF HAWAII, Nancy Pelosi did attest and declare to all by the Democratic Official Certification of Nomination that both Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Biden were “…legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” Why did Nancy Pelosi, in her capacity as the DNC Chair, provide one certification to Hawaii and a different one to the other 49 states?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30784035/DNC-Chairperson-Nancy-Pelosi-Issued-Signed-Two-Different-Certification-Forms-for-Obama-in-2008;

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109363;

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/certificate-of-nomination-summary/;

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2696896/posts;

LET IT BE KNOWN that all 50 Secretaries of State FAILED in their obligation to vet Barack Hussein Obama prior to his nomination as the Democratic candidate for the office of U.S. President.

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/south-dakotas-secretary-of-state-obamas.html;

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/texas-bill-birth-certificate-required-for-presidential-candidate-texas-secretary-of-state-obama-birth-certificate-lubbock-avalanche-journal/;

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=80931;

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/.

LET IT BE KNOWN that Vice President Richard Cheney, as President of the Senate, FAILED to request any objection to the electoral vote count on January 8, 2009, as required by U.S.C. Title 3, Section 15;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015—-000-.html: “…Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. …”.

LET IT BE KNOWN that just because there is no clear requirement stating a specific entity must ensure the eligibility of a candidate running for the U.S. presidency, that was no excuse for the 50 individual States, the Congress, or the Judiciary to abrogate their responsibility to American citizens by allowing an unvetted, ineligible person to be nominated, and then elected, to the U.S. presidency. The argument must be made that since no specific entity was required to ensure a candidate’s eligibility, then any appropriate investigative body could and should have performed that function! All branches of state and federal government FAILED the American people! Just because there is no specificity as to who should verify a candidate’s eligibility, that does not cancel the constitutional eligibility requirement! Additionally, LET IT BE KNOWN that the U.S. Senate passed S. Res. 511 declaring John McCain “a natural born citizen”, yet were totally silent on the more obvious question of Barack Obama’s citizenship status. Obama’s father was a Kenyan with allegiance to the British Crown and such allegiance passed on to his son, Barack Obama, at birth. So why didn’t Congress investigate how a man born subject to the British Crown could possibly be considered a requisite natural born citizen of the United States?

http://www.wnd.com/eligibility;

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/;

http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2010/11/congressional-report-obama-eligibility-unvetted/;

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88566;

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13304;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/17/supreme-court-accountablity/;

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd342.htm;

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/show.

LET IT BE KNOWN that U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 4, gives the definition for Misprision of Felony:

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” Every member of Congress, the Supreme Court, and all the judges handling all the Obama eligibility lawsuits were apprised numerous times of Obama’s felonious birth certificates, Social Security number, Selective Service Registration, et al, from American citizens. None of those officials can say they were uninformed. We have evidence that they were indeed informed, over and over again. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a report on August 16, 2010, outlining the use of taxpayer funds on government public relations and propaganda. The report states, “…Under one-party rule in 2009, the White House used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the President’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives…” Unlawful? Where is the investigation? Of course, using taxpayer funds unlawfully should be investigated. But aren’t releasing to the public a fraudulent Certification of Live Birth, misusing a Social Security number, and using a falsified Selective Service Registration felonious crimes? Where is the investigation, Congress?

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/28/misprision-of-felony-report-the-crime/;

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Misprision+of+felony;

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/20100816obamaadministrationpropagandareport.pdf.

WHEREAS, numerous lawsuits were initiated prior and subsequent to Barack Obama’s swearing in as the de facto president of the United States, We The People Demand the judiciary systems from the Circuit Courts, to the District Courts, to the Supreme Court and any pertinent Appeals Courts to adjudicate this matter of national security now and with all discovery, and cease from erecting the artificial “standing” barrier in the Peoples’ pursuit of justice. The Courts’ job is to adjudicate, so do it. The American People can withstand a Constitutional crisis; we cannot abide a usurper in Our White House! The “eligibility” lawsuits lay out the law and facts of this matter—

a. Mario Apuzzo, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/; http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm;

b. Philip Berg, http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/0.pdf; http://philjberg.com/; http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=philip+berg&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets;

c. Leo Donofrio, http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/; http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a407.htm;

d. Stephen Pidgeon, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84966.; http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-eligibility-challenger-stephen.html;

e. Orly Taitz; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/; http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=orly+taitz&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets;

f. United States Justice Foundation, http://usjf.net/;

g. Cort Wrotnowski, http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a469.htm.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama, unable to prove his eligibility under A1S2C5 of the U.S. Constitution to be the president, and having previously released several short-form birth certificates which were deemed fraudulent, released a long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011. It was examined minutely by numerous people and also declared fraudulent. We The People Demand the FBI, a Special Prosecutor, Congress, et al, initiate an investigation immediately and forensically examine said long form document!

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=299705;

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2010/05/14/fraud_in_the_usa_the_greatest_birth_certificate_fraud_in_history.thtml;

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/;

http://www.rightwire.net/2011/05/obamas-long-form-birth-cert-poor_02.html;

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/;

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama’s SSN was issued by the State of Connecticut, in which Obama never lived, and appears to be used by him fraudulently, We The People Demand the FBI, Special Prosecutor, Congress, Social Security Administration, et al, initiate an investigation immediately!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20976501/Neil-Sankey-Barack-Obama-Addresses-SS-Numbers;

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/calling-all-journalists-obamas-multiple.html;

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/obama-guilty-of-at-least-one-felony.html;

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261033;

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/;

http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/another_look_at_obamas.htm.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama’s Selective Service Registration has been examined and deemed to be fraudulent, We The People Demand the FBI, Special Prosecutor, Congress, Selective Service Registration, et al, initiate an investigation immediately!

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/08/are-there-multiple-records-of-obamas-selective-service-registration/;

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/;

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=156573;

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/DraftRegistration.htm.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama’s refusal to release documentation substantiating his eligibility to serve as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, an officer and Army physician, LtCol Terry Lakin, was deprived of justice and liberty, refused discovery and a right to defend himself at his court-martial for refusing to follow an order he had no assurance was legal, and was stripped of his benefits and imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

WHEREAS, American citizens have had enough of our elected representatives refusing to do their jobs, with every one of the 535 having failed us by ignoring the destruction and overthrow of our Constitutional Republic, know this: You have lost your mandate to govern us. You have lost our trust and respect. You have sold us and our Constitution down the river of political expediency. You have allowed your own cowardice and self-interest to drown out our concerns and demands. You have aided, abetted or allowed the looting of our taxpayer dollars from the U.S. treasury, and have allowed our money to be redistributed to bankers under phony programs such as TARP. You have ignored the Obama eligibility problem. Not one of you 535 congressional “leaders” has investigated the unvetted, ineligible poseur in our White House. Not one! Every last one of you has turned your back on us. Now we are turning our backs on you. If you continue to stonewall us and allow the complete destruction of our constitutional republic, know this: We are many. We are organized. We are indignant. We are angry. We will no longer be held hostage to your abrogation of duty and responsibility to us and our Constitution. We are hereby putting all 535 members of Congress on notice that We The People are committed to voting every last one of you out for your collective dereliction of duty in not investigating the many and serious issues about Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of president! And when you get back home, defeated and humiliated, you will have to live among those whom you betrayed. Ponder that.

THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND Congress call for an outside, non-government Special Prosecutor to immediately initiate an investigation of the man posing as the president, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to protect our national security, and support and defend our Constitution and the rights of the citizens of the United States of America!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58721290/Obama-Birth-Certificate-Final-Affidavit-of-Douglas-Vogt-June-24-2011-Total-of-9-items-now-listed

A very good post thank you.

[PartyTime]

LOL this is soo funny. 10 pages enough already!!!!

Funny, but I haven't noticed any signs posted requiring you must click on this read and read it. I know this may be hard to comprehrend but all you need to do is not click on the thread and presto! It ends for you. I know it's an unsual concept but try it. You might like it. LOL

Wow kami....

LET IT BE KNOWN.......that's a lot of LIES in one post...

Well at least you acknowledge the truth. When truth gets in the way and you can't rebut the truth, just resort to saying it's a lie. Well that settles it then. It's all lies just because YOU said so. LOL