CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF FACTS
Posted on January 28th, 2009 by David-Crockett
Ms. Cris Ericson thanks for your courage and patriotism. God bless you
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY HAS A DUTY TO PROVIDE VOTERS BECAUSE HIS “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH” SHOWS THIS LEGAL NOTICE IN TINY PRINT IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER, “[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19].
Ms. Cris Ericson, registered voter and resident of the State of Vermont, believes that President Barack Hussein Obama has a legal DUTY to provide voters with material facts that he is currently allegedly fraudulently concealing.
Ms. Ericson believes that the legal DUTY is required by the legal notice on his “Certification of Live Birth” which, in the lower right hand corner, in tiny fine print, states: [HRS 338-13(b), 33819].
Ms. Ericson is hoping to find an attorney licensed to practice law in federal courts to file a class action lawsuit, PRO BONO, on behalf of herself and other registered voters who want to know, and who need to know, and who allegedly have a legal right to know exactly what the material facts are that are represented by the legal notice: [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]
The material facts represented by this legal notice might be the facts that prove that President Barack Hussein Obama has to step down from Office on the basis that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, and turn the keys to the White House over to Vice President Joe Biden.
Ms. Cris Ericson believes that the material facts that the legal notice represents may provide legal cause of action to allegedly prove continuing fraud in a fiduciary capacity against taxpayers and voters by President Barack Hussein Obama, former Vice President Dick Cheney, and each and every member of the United States Congress.
racy by asking for members of Congress to vote without informed consent, and conspiracy to issue forth certified votes as fraudulent conveyances.
It is apparently legal for registered voters and taxpayers to sue the United States government and its officers under 28 USCS Section 1491 Claims against the United States.
http://ucfc.uscourts.gov Federal Claims Court
http://uscode.house.gov/searchcriteria.shtml online law library
28 USCS, Section 1491 (a)(1) The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States. (2) To provide an entire remedy and to complete the relief afforded by the judgment, the Court may, as an incident of and collateral to any such judgement, issue orders directing restoration to office or position, placement in appropriate duty or retirement status, and correction of applicable records, and such orders may be issued to any appropriate official of the United States. In any case within its jurisdiction, the Court shall have the power to remand appropriate matters to any administrative or executive body or official with such direction as it may deem proper and just.
“Court of Federal Claims is Article I Court of limited jurisdiction created by Congress as forum where private parties could sue government for non-tort money claims, where claims would otherwise be barred by sovereign immunity.” Slovacek v United States (1998) 40 Fed Cl 828, 98-1 USTC 50397, 81 AFTR 2d 98-1859.
“Congress created Court of Federal Claims to afford individuals forum to bring specific claims against government; while placing jurisdictional limits upon Court, Congress did not intend those jurisdictional limits to be manipulated to prevent claimant from recovering compensation against government.” Davis v United States (1996) 35 Fed Cl 392.
“Jurisdiction under 28 USCS Section 1491 applies only to contracts either express or implied in fact, not implied in law, where (1) agreement implied in fact is founded upon meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in express contract, is inferred from conduct of parties showing their tacit understanding, while (2) by contrast, agreement implied in law is fiction of law where promise is imputed to perform legal duty.” Hercules Inc. v United States (1996, US) 134 L Ed 2d 47, 116 S Ct 981, 96 CDOS 1403, 96 Daily Journal DAR 2395, 40 CCF 76894, 9 FLW Fed S 442.
In President Barack Hussein Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” you can see, in the lower right hand corner, the legal notice: [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19] and then please go to http://www.capitol.hawaii.govand on the right hand click on Hawaii Revised Statutes.
HRS 338-19 is a birth certificate issued as a “copy” relying on documents that were too old to be used, and or otherwise in such condition that they could not be used. The statute is contradictory because if the documents were too old or in too poor a condition to be used to certify, then why did the State of Hawaii issue a “copy” that was based on possibly non-legible material? It makes no common sense. The Statute is contradictory, overly vague, overly broad and therefore unconstitutional.
HRS 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of HRS 338-16, HRS 338-17 and HRS 338-18. These are for birth certificates that are issued one year or more after birth, and for certificates that have been altered, and/or both. This set of statutes also gives a party legal standing to request a judicial determination of the validity of the birth certificate because it was issued one year or more after birth and/or altered.
“Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear claims against States or their Agencies except where States or their Agencies acted as agents of United States.” Hassan v United States (1998) 41 Fed CL 149.
Clearly, the State of Hawaii and the Agency of the Department of Health of Hawaii, have acted as agents of the United States Congress, former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Barack Hussein Obama because the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, sealed President Barack Hussein Obama’s original long form birth certificate and all underlying information upon which the “Certification of Live Birth” was issued. The “Certification of Live Birth” is just a “short form” certificate with none of the information that a regular “long form birth certificate” has.
“Plaintiff’s federal tort claim against government is not dismissed prior to discovery on grounds that discretionary function exception of 28 USCS Section 2680(a) applied, because factual issues and evidence to support those issues are not presently known to plaintiff, and dismissal of action prior to discovery would be premature and unduly harsh.” Fanoele v United States (1995, DC Kan) 898 F Supp 822.
(1) The United States Congress failed to do their duty to obtain any long form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama before certifying the Electoral College Votes.
(2) Former Vice President Dick Cheney failed to do his duty to ask for objections to the Electoral College vote.
(3) President Barack Hussein Obama has failed to do his duty to release the information upon which statutes HRS 338-13(b) {which is subject to the requirements of 338-16, 338-17, 338-18} and 338-19 were legally required to be noticed on his “Certification of Live Birth”.
(4) All of the Judges and Justices in State and Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, where previous plaintiffs have tried various motions to compel material facts and subpoena Barack Hussein Obama’s original long form birth certificate, have denied all such actions, and therefore, the legal jurisdiction and the legal standing rests with the United States Court of Federal Claims; either that or the Judges and Justices are in conspiracy to conceal material facts from voters and taxpayers.
(5) The Hawaii “Certification of Live Birth” of Barack Hussein Obama was issued one year or more after he was born, and/or altered. We, the people, need to know why. The “Certification of Live Birth” also gives a legal notice: (Rev. 11/01) which is absolute proof that Barack Hussein Obama received this “Certification of Live Birth” after he was already 40 years old. What took him so long? Why did he receive this “Certification of Live Birth” which was issued when he was 40 years old, or older, after September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Attack on the United States of America? Where was he living during the Terrorist Attack on the United States of America and why did he need to get a “Certification of Live Birth” after the attack, and how much was it altered from the original long form birth certificate?
WE, the PEOPLE, NEED TO KNOW!
Hawaii has different standards for evidence than Federal Rules of Evidence.
“District Court did not abuse its discretion in applying Federal Rules of Evidence rather than Hawaii Health Department Rules in finding results of intoxilizer test admissible under public records and reports exception to hearsay rule of Rule 803(6)(8).” United States v De Water (1998, CA9 HAWAII) 846 F2d 528, 25 Fed Rules Evid Serv 748.
President Barack Hussein Obama now needs to be held to the standards of Federal Rules of Evidence because he now holds the Office of the President of the United States of America, and his “Certification of Live Birth” should now be required to be determined if it can, or can not, withstand federal scrutiny.
Ms. Cris Ericson would like to encourage voters and taxpayers to join her in a Class Action Lawsuit to subpoena the material facts, the original long form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama in the United States Court of Federal Claims. She needs a Pro Bono attorney.
Ms. Cris Ericson http://crisericson.com
879 Church Street, Chester, Vermont 05143-9375 (802)875-4038 Please send a certified return receipt letter.
Thank you and God Bless America!
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY HAS A DUTY TO PROVIDE VOTERS BECAUSE HIS “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH” SHOWS THIS LEGAL NOTICE IN TINY PRINT IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER, “[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19].
Ms. Cris Ericson, registered voter and resident of the State of Vermont, believes that President Barack Hussein Obama has a legal DUTY to provide voters with material facts that he is currently allegedly fraudulently concealing.
Ms. Ericson believes that the legal DUTY is required by the legal notice on his “Certification of Live Birth” which, in the lower right hand corner, in tiny fine print, states: [HRS 338-13(b), 33819].
Ms. Ericson is hoping to find an attorney licensed to practice law in federal courts to file a class action lawsuit, PRO BONO, on behalf of herself and other registered voters who want to know, and who need to know, and who allegedly have a legal right to know exactly what the material facts are that are represented by the legal notice: [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]
The material facts represented by this legal notice might be the facts that prove that President Barack Hussein Obama has to step down from Office on the basis that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, and turn the keys to the White House over to Vice President Joe Biden.
Ms. Cris Ericson believes that the material facts that the legal notice represents may provide legal cause of action to allegedly prove continuing fraud in a fiduciary capacity against taxpayers and voters by President Barack Hussein Obama, former Vice President Dick Cheney, and each and every member of the United States Congress.
racy by asking for members of Congress to vote without informed consent, and conspiracy to issue forth certified votes as fraudulent conveyances.
It is apparently legal for registered voters and taxpayers to sue the United States government and its officers under 28 USCS Section 1491 Claims against the United States.
http://ucfc.uscourts.gov Federal Claims Court
http://uscode.house.gov/searchcriteria.shtml online law library
28 USCS, Section 1491 (a)(1) The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States. (2) To provide an entire remedy and to complete the relief afforded by the judgment, the Court may, as an incident of and collateral to any such judgement, issue orders directing restoration to office or position, placement in appropriate duty or retirement status, and correction of applicable records, and such orders may be issued to any appropriate official of the United States. In any case within its jurisdiction, the Court shall have the power to remand appropriate matters to any administrative or executive body or official with such direction as it may deem proper and just.
“Court of Federal Claims is Article I Court of limited jurisdiction created by Congress as forum where private parties could sue government for non-tort money claims, where claims would otherwise be barred by sovereign immunity.” Slovacek v United States (1998) 40 Fed Cl 828, 98-1 USTC 50397, 81 AFTR 2d 98-1859.
“Congress created Court of Federal Claims to afford individuals forum to bring specific claims against government; while placing jurisdictional limits upon Court, Congress did not intend those jurisdictional limits to be manipulated to prevent claimant from recovering compensation against government.” Davis v United States (1996) 35 Fed Cl 392.
“Jurisdiction under 28 USCS Section 1491 applies only to contracts either express or implied in fact, not implied in law, where (1) agreement implied in fact is founded upon meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in express contract, is inferred from conduct of parties showing their tacit understanding, while (2) by contrast, agreement implied in law is fiction of law where promise is imputed to perform legal duty.” Hercules Inc. v United States (1996, US) 134 L Ed 2d 47, 116 S Ct 981, 96 CDOS 1403, 96 Daily Journal DAR 2395, 40 CCF 76894, 9 FLW Fed S 442.
In President Barack Hussein Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” you can see, in the lower right hand corner, the legal notice: [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19] and then please go to http://www.capitol.hawaii.govand on the right hand click on Hawaii Revised Statutes.
HRS 338-19 is a birth certificate issued as a “copy” relying on documents that were too old to be used, and or otherwise in such condition that they could not be used. The statute is contradictory because if the documents were too old or in too poor a condition to be used to certify, then why did the State of Hawaii issue a “copy” that was based on possibly non-legible material? It makes no common sense. The Statute is contradictory, overly vague, overly broad and therefore unconstitutional.
HRS 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of HRS 338-16, HRS 338-17 and HRS 338-18. These are for birth certificates that are issued one year or more after birth, and for certificates that have been altered, and/or both. This set of statutes also gives a party legal standing to request a judicial determination of the validity of the birth certificate because it was issued one year or more after birth and/or altered.
“Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear claims against States or their Agencies except where States or their Agencies acted as agents of United States.” Hassan v United States (1998) 41 Fed CL 149.
Clearly, the State of Hawaii and the Agency of the Department of Health of Hawaii, have acted as agents of the United States Congress, former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Barack Hussein Obama because the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, sealed President Barack Hussein Obama’s original long form birth certificate and all underlying information upon which the “Certification of Live Birth” was issued. The “Certification of Live Birth” is just a “short form” certificate with none of the information that a regular “long form birth certificate” has.
“Plaintiff’s federal tort claim against government is not dismissed prior to discovery on grounds that discretionary function exception of 28 USCS Section 2680(a) applied, because factual issues and evidence to support those issues are not presently known to plaintiff, and dismissal of action prior to discovery would be premature and unduly harsh.” Fanoele v United States (1995, DC Kan) 898 F Supp 822.
(1) The United States Congress failed to do their duty to obtain any long form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama before certifying the Electoral College Votes.
(2) Former Vice President Dick Cheney failed to do his duty to ask for objections to the Electoral College vote.
(3) President Barack Hussein Obama has failed to do his duty to release the information upon which statutes HRS 338-13(b) {which is subject to the requirements of 338-16, 338-17, 338-18} and 338-19 were legally required to be noticed on his “Certification of Live Birth”.
(4) All of the Judges and Justices in State and Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, where previous plaintiffs have tried various motions to compel material facts and subpoena Barack Hussein Obama’s original long form birth certificate, have denied all such actions, and therefore, the legal jurisdiction and the legal standing rests with the United States Court of Federal Claims; either that or the Judges and Justices are in conspiracy to conceal material facts from voters and taxpayers.
(5) The Hawaii “Certification of Live Birth” of Barack Hussein Obama was issued one year or more after he was born, and/or altered. We, the people, need to know why. The “Certification of Live Birth” also gives a legal notice: (Rev. 11/01) which is absolute proof that Barack Hussein Obama received this “Certification of Live Birth” after he was already 40 years old. What took him so long? Why did he receive this “Certification of Live Birth” which was issued when he was 40 years old, or older, after September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Attack on the United States of America? Where was he living during the Terrorist Attack on the United States of America and why did he need to get a “Certification of Live Birth” after the attack, and how much was it altered from the original long form birth certificate?
WE, the PEOPLE, NEED TO KNOW!
Hawaii has different standards for evidence than Federal Rules of Evidence.
“District Court did not abuse its discretion in applying Federal Rules of Evidence rather than Hawaii Health Department Rules in finding results of intoxilizer test admissible under public records and reports exception to hearsay rule of Rule 803(6)(8).” United States v De Water (1998, CA9 HAWAII) 846 F2d 528, 25 Fed Rules Evid Serv 748.
President Barack Hussein Obama now needs to be held to the standards of Federal Rules of Evidence because he now holds the Office of the President of the United States of America, and his “Certification of Live Birth” should now be required to be determined if it can, or can not, withstand federal scrutiny.
Ms. Cris Ericson would like to encourage voters and taxpayers to join her in a Class Action Lawsuit to subpoena the material facts, the original long form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama in the United States Court of Federal Claims. She needs a Pro Bono attorney.
Ms. Cris Ericson http://crisericson.com
879 Church Street, Chester, Vermont 05143-9375 (802)875-4038 Please send a certified return receipt letter.
Thank you and God Bless America!
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
or complete list of laws
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]
Case Notes
Compulsory reporting not objectionable. 466 F. Supp. 714.
§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.” [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]
§338-15 Late or altered certificates. A person born in the State may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting proof as required by rules adopted by the department of health. Certificates registered after the time prescribed for filing by the rules of the department of health shall be registered subject to any evidentiary requirements that the department adopts by rule to substantiate the alleged facts of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §19; RL 1955, §57-18; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-15; am L 1972, c 66, §1(1); am L 1997, c 305, §2]
Attorney General Opinions
Section provides for the alteration of only birth certificates. Att. Gen. Op. 84-14.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]
§338-20.5 Adoption; foreign born persons. (a) The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii, when it receives the following:
(1) A properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department; and
(2) A copy of any investigatory report and recommendation which may have been prepared by the director of social services; and
(3) A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following:
(A) Date of assumption of custody;
(B) Sex;
(C) Color or race;
(D) Approximate age of child;
(E) Name and address of the person or persons adopting said child;
(F) Name given to child by adoptive parent or parents;
(G) True or probable country of birth.
The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth; and
(4) A request that a new certificate of birth be established.
(b) After preparation of the new certificate of birth in the new name of the adopted person, the department of health shall seal and file the certified copy of the adoptive decree, the investigatory report and recommendation of the director of human services if any, the report constituting the original certificate of birth, and the request for a new certificate of birth. The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents. [L 1979, c 203, §3; am L 1990, c 338, §3]
§338-41 Issuance; procedure. (a) The department of health may make regulations respecting the form of Hawaiian birth certificates and certified copies of such certificates and other matters relating to Hawaii birth certificates as appear necessary and the regulations, when approved and made in accordance with chapter 91, shall have the force of law. The department shall furnish the form of the certificates and copies made therefrom.
(b) Any certificate of Hawaiian birth issued heretofore under or by virtue of any law of the Territory of Hawaii or the State, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. [L 1911, c 96, §1; am L 1923, c 246, §1; RL 1925, §196; am L 1927, c 202, §1; RL 1935, §7610; RL 1945, §12910; am L 1951, c 132, §1; RL 1955, §57-40; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §9; am L 1965, c 96, §39; HRS §338-41; am L 1970, c 11, §1; am L 1972, c 66, §1(4)]
Case Notes
Prima facie evidence overcome by competent evidence of nonidentification. 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 258.
Certificate not controlling upon U.S. immigration officials re admission of Chinese. 217 F. 48; 35 Op. U.S. Att. Gen. 69.
(Some of these statutes should be included in the Lawsuit’s to show how simple it was to get a Hawaii BC) Dan
how will barry contort the law to get around this challenge? No jurisdiction?
same with nancy pelosi, who signed the certs.
the same with the sec. of states by failing to honor their sworn oaths to uphold the constitution and failing to respond to many requests by voters to provide information. (this last sentence applies to above paragraphs)
federal election finance committee for failing to verify obama’s eligibility and investigate many fraudelent donations because obama allegedely lied.
howard dean and diane feinstein as members of the DNC
and that group that claims to check out the eligibility of candidates for the national debates, i forget their name off the top of my head.
submitted for consideration , as supplemental information.
but then again, i am not an attorney, so take with what i post with grain of salt and have it reviewed by legal beagles.
barry’s college documents
and
state dept. passport information
as supplemental supporting documents
just a suggestion, to get the complete picture.
again, i am not an attorney….
The US Constitution does not explicitly forbid ineligible candidates from running for the office of president, but arranges that objectsion to eligibility be made at time of the certification of the Electoral College Vote.
The question is then, does anyone in particular have a duty to vet the candidates.
The best argument is founded on the strongest reason.
Since no one congressman is so bound, but the joint session is constitutional provided with the ability to do so, the claim of dereliction of duty is best made by a claim that the Joint Session members, that is the entire Congress, being duely informed of the issues (cf. restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org which wrote every member of Congress and informed them by certified mail for the evidence) that they failed in their duty to vet Obama.
The standing in the Federal Court of claims also seems to be debatable. The court was established for personal damages, where there is an expressed or implied strict duty. Suing anyone else but the members of the Joint Session would be, I fear, dismissed on the grounds of no strict duty.
Also, the VT resident seems to imply the posted Certificatino of Live Birth, was presented by Obama, but its provenance is doubtful and he could easily seek to dismiss on the grounds that he had nothing to do with the posted forgery.
It is not the COLB which gives rise to the failure to do the duty, but the public admission by Obama that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and that his father never became a US citizen, knowledge of which was had by all the Congress, combined with the information regarding the natural born citizen clause, pubilcally knows in the Senate hearings from 2004, and the necessity of having 2 citizen parents, pubicly witnesses to by the otherwise erroneous Senate Resolute 511 of last June.
He has died so I have no connection but I am fulling interested in the class action. Obama in putting our country in a world of debt that our grandchilen will never get out of paying. He wants to destroy this country.
Best bet for answers to the complaint:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menus/consumer/invest.shtm
http://www.lawcash.com/settlement/class-actions.asp
Maybe People can pitch in and finance a gifted attorney:
http://www.lawcash.net/
Just rember voters Do not have standing to challenge
the qualifications of Candidates for Elected Federal Office
Send info on just how to be included in the class action.
Gordon
I am sure that the Governor Of HAWAII LINGLEY, Mrs FUKINO and the Supreme Court will show you where exactely in the Certification of Live Birth of the Internet, the voters and tax payers must watch to read;
B.O …………American Natural Born Citizen.
Concerning John Mc CAIN the voters and tax payers are loyaly informed by the 110th US Congress N°511 Senate Résolution: “John McCAIN Is a Natural Born Citizen under the US Const. ART II section 1″
The soil don’t makes the Natural Born Citizenship but naturally an American father and an American mother.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/
COMMERCIAL LIEN STRATEGY:
A “PRESIDENTIAL” OPINION
by Alfred Adask
[Reprinted with permission from The AntiShyster magazine, P.O. Box 540786, Dallas, Texas, 75354-0786 — annual subscription (6 issues) $25. This article appeared in Volume 3, No. 1 - Jan/Feb 1993]
In the last issue of the AntiShyster, we began to explore a new Commercial Lien Strategy (CLS) whereby common citizens, without the aid of lawyers or the courts, can induce government officials to actually obey the laws they have sworn to uphold.
In brief, the CLS works like this:
1. Most people know that liens can be filed on another person’s property based on a financial debt (if I owe you $10,000 and refuse to pay, you can file a lien on my property for the amount of that debt). However, few people realize that Commercial Liens can also be filed based on a contractual duty or obligation. For example - suppose I contract to put a roof on your house, but fail to do so. Although I don’t owe you any money, I do owe you a contractuaI duty to build the roof. Based on that duty, you could theoretically file a Commercial Lien on my property as a device to compel me to complete my contractual duty/obligation to build your roof.)
2. When government officials take an Oath of Office to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States” (and/or Texas, New York, Utah, etc.), they enter into a specific performance contract with We the People. By virtue of their Oath of Office, government officials assume a contractual duty or obligation to obey the law!
3. If a government official who has sworn (i.e, contracted) to obey the law, breaks or ignores any law he’s sworn to “uphold”, common citizens can file a Commercial Lien on his property that will paralyze his ability to buy, sell, or lease any property and ruin his credit rating until he corrects his breach of contract and once again obeys the law. For example, suppose a judge arbitrarily denies you some Right guaranteed in the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold — if he does, you can file a Commercial Lien on his property to compel his compliance with his contractual oath.
Because the Commercial Lien is a non-judicial instrument, there is no judge or court involved in the filing procedure who could dismiss the lien and thereby protect government officials who have broken the law. Although we are still unable to sue city hall (and the crooks that reside therein), it looks like we can nevertheless “lien on ‘em”.
The CLS appears to be simple, inexpensive and nearly perfect for common people and pro se’s. All they have to do is properly prepare a Commercial Lien against the offending government official, have it notarized, pay a modest filing fee and file it with one or more County Clerks. With just a little time, a little research, and a little money, the average person is capable of compelling government officials to actually obey the law! It’s almost unheard of. The last time the People successfully compelled corrupt government officials to actually obey the law was during the American Revolution — and that was done at the point of a sword. The CLS may be similarly powerful, but it’s done at the point of a pen.
THE $64 QUESTION
Clearly, if the Commercial Lien Strategy is lawful, its ability to drive corruption and lawlessness from our government may be limitless. But that’s the critical question: Is the Commercial Lien strategy truly lawful? The question is important because if the CLS is unlawful, any pro se who tries this strategy could wind up being sanctioned, fined, or even jailed.
The CLS certainly sounds lawful, and I know of several examples where the CLS has been used on government officials with apparent success. Still, it’s a new strategy, and despite the optimistic opinions of some very knowledgeable pro se’s, it’s too early to tell for sure if the CLS is really lawful. Part of the problem is that no matter how brilliant some pro se’s may be, their legal theories are often flawed, incomplete, or absolutely wrong.
If only we could get a competent licensed lawyer to give us a positive opinion on the lawfulness of the CLS — then we might feel more confident about applying the strategy. But how could we get a truly competent lawyer to analyze the CLS on our behalf? Even if we could afford the cost, how could we trust a lawyer to give us an honest opinion concerning a strategy that might ultimately shake the whole government?
The answer, of course, is that we (pro se’s, etc) can’t trust a lawyer’s opinion on the CLS. But just because the lawyers might not be honest with us doesn’t mean that skilled lawyers might not offer honest opinions on the CLS to someone else like, oh, maybe some judges and government officials who’ve been slapped with the CLS. And guess what? That’s just what’s happened.
SWORN & SUBSCRIBED
How’d you like to see a sworn opinion on the CLS from the president of the Florida bar? Sound unlikely? Sound impossible? Well, we got it.
I haven’t seen all the background documents, but it appears that Mr. Nelson E. Starr (a pro se litigant in Case No. 92-8051-CIV- RYSKAMP, US Dist. Ct. of the South. Dist. Florida) filed Commercial Liens on several top government officials and federal judges. Apparently, the defendants (government officials and judges) then asked Mr. Alan T. Dimond, president of the Florida Bar, to examine Mr. Starr’s Commercial Lien and express his opinion of the lien’s legality in a sworn affidavit. Someone sent me a photocopy.
In the first five paragraphs of his affidavit, Mr. Dimond outlines his considerable background as a lawyer. Then, in the last two paragraphs, he swears under oath that:
“6. I have reviewed a document entitled “A Security (15 U.S.C.) Claim of Commercial Lien and Affidavit,” recorded at Official Record Book 7358 [the last digit in this number wasn’t quite clear in the photocopy; it might be “7355″] at pages 703-705, in the Official Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, on August 13, 1992. I note that the document names a number of public figures including the Attorney General of the United States, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, …, the Chief United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, …, [another] United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, and others at least one of whom is participating as counsel for the United States in this case.”
“7. I have been told by counsel for the United States that the Security Claim of Commercial Lien and Affidavit has no basis in fact or law and is a creation of one of the litigants herein. In my 24 years of experience, I have never seen or heard of any Lien such as those that were filed relative to this matter. Assuming the truth of this representation, and based on my experience in civic and bar activities and as a practicing lawyer and as the president of The Florida Bar, it is my opinion that the document causes irreparable harm to the system of the administration of justice. While some of the harm may be compensable at law, no degree of compensation will adequately remedy the damage to the appearance of integrity of those named and of the system of the administration of justice. In my opinion, the filing of this type of lien is a direct attack in the justice system and on the general reputations of those named in the ‘lien’. It may negatively impact on the financial credit rating of those individuals. It will probably have a negative impact on their willingness to continue to serve as representatives of the United States. And, it constitutes an abuse of civil process that cannot be adequately remedied by an action at law.”
(signed) Alan T. Dimond;
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this 7th day of October, 1992. He is
personally known to me and did take
an oath. Notary: H. Valdes
LINE BY LINE
Damn.
Dimond’s affidavit was apparently intended to help defend the government officials, but if you stop to reread it, line by line, you’ll see that one of the nation’s premier lawyers (president of the Florida bar) pretty much says the Commercial Lien’s got the defendants by the short hairs.
But before you reread Dimond’s sworn statement, consider some of the background information. First, Mr. Dimond is a lawyer. His stock in trade are words. Linguistic precision is everything in law. Second, he was asked to provide an opinion in defense of several very powerful government officials and federal judges. Third, he was
asked to present his opinion under oath.
Conclusions: 1) Mr. Dimond’s purpose was to prove the CLS was unlawful; 2) he should have done some considerable research into the CLS to prove it’s unlawful; and 3) he must have chosen the words used in his affidavit very carefully.
Point: If Mr. Dimond writes very carefully, we must read very carefully.
For example, Dimond opens paragraph 7 with, “I have been told by counsel for the United States that the Security Claim of Commercial Lien and Affidavit has no basis in fact or law…”
ANALYSIS: Very strange. The defendant judges and government officials presumably sought attorney Dimond’s personal affidavit because either 1) he’s recognized as a legal genius whose opinions carry great technical weight, or 2) he’s recognized as a legal whore who’ll say anything for anyone (if the price is right) but whose opinion still carries great political weight by virtue of his status as Florida bar president.
Curiously, lawyer Dimond does not say the Commercial Lien is unlawful — he merely says he’s “been told it has no basis in fact or law” by someone else. Hell, any first year law student can tell you his second hand opinion is essentially hearsay and, as such, almost meaningless in court.
Dimond continues, saying “Assuming the truth of this representation [that the lien “has no basis if fact or law”]…” Assuming? Are we to “assume” lawyer Dimond didn’t bother to research the issue himself and prefers to base his sworn testimony, on behalf of some of the most powerful government officials in the country, on nothing but hearsay?
By attributing the opinion of the Commercial Lien’s lawfulness to an unnamed “counsel of the United States” and “assuming” that opinion is valid, attorney Dimond is ducking personal responsibility for a statement that implies (but never declares) that the CLS is unlawful. Under oath, Dimond sounds strangely unconvinced that the CLS is truly “without basis in fact or law”.
Dimond’s evasiveness is telling. The powerful defendants must have sought Dimond’s opinion because they expected him to rescue them with a brilliant denial of the lien’s lawfulness. If Dimond didn’t take time to analyze the lien’s lawfulness and merely dashed out an affidavit on a moment’s notice as a sort of “political favor” to the powerful defendants, why didn’t he “go the distance” and swear that, based on all his years of experience, he knew the CLS was absolutely worthless? The only reason I can imagine is that something in the CLS scares him more than the government officials who sought his help. (Could it be that he was scared that if he lied under oath, that someone would file a Commercial Lien on him?)
On the other hand, if Dimond thoroughly analyzed the lien (as we can expect from a bar president handling a very hot issue for several very powerful government officials), why didn’t he “go the distance” and swear under oath that he knew the lien was worthless? I can imagine only one explanation — Dimond suspects the Commercial Lien strategy is lawful.
Why else would Dimond base his affidavit on inadmissible hearsay and unprofessional “personal experience”, rather than hard, professional research in a law library? Are we to believe that the president of the Florida bar, a member of a substantial law firm, a recognized professional in his field, didn’t bother to crack open a single law book to find evidence that the CLS is unlawful? Six important federal officials (people who can play a serious role in Dimond’s financial and political future) asked for his help, and the best he can do is vaguely recollect that “I ain’t nevah seen nuthin’ lahk it, nevah befo’”?
Pretty hard to believe.
A more plausible scenario would be that Dimond did his level best to please the powerful defendants by digging through the law library for statutes and case law that proved the CLS invalid, but failed to find anything. If Dimond researched the CLS, but couldn’t prove it unlawful, he’d have to concede it was lawful. Perhaps, he couldn’t reference his own opinion under oath since, based on his legal research, he knew the CLS was valid. Therefore, Dimond could only support the defendants by skating around the issue with an affidavit based on hearsay and “assumptions” rather than facts and law.
Next, Dimond notes that the CLS “is a creation of one of the litigants herein. In my 24 years of experience, I have never seen or heard of any [such] ‘lien’…”
ANALYSIS: Roughly correct, but irrelevant. The CLS is a recent innovation previously unknown to the lawyers and legal system. But labeling the CLS as a “creation” hints that it’s been spawned out of some twisted pro se litigant’s delusions rather than the law, that the CLS is without legal and lawful foundation, and is therefore unlawful.
But that’s just Dimond’s words. If I were spinning those words, I wouldn’t say the lien’s a new “creation”. I’d say it’s a new “application” and thereby imply the Commercial Lien has a lawful foundation, and as such, is probably lawful itself.
Further, just because Mr. Dimond has never seen such a lien in his “24 years of experience” doesn’t prove a thing. How many lawyers had seen a law that blacks could ride in the front of an Alabama bus prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act? How many lawyers had seen a Constitutional “right to privacy” before the U.S. Supreme Court found it in Roe v. Wade? The law, as lawyers like to remind us, is constantly changing, growing, evolving. Well, on behalf of “We, the Mammals”, I’d like to welcome “You, the Dinosaur Lawyers” to a brand new wrinkle in the “theory of evolution”: the CLS is about to render government corruption almost extinct.
It’s irrelevant whether Dimond’s ever seen the CLS before. He hasn’t seen the dark side of the moon, either, but it’s there. The real point to Dimond’s statement is that in all his experience, he’s never seen one bit of evidence, precedent, statute, case law, or Constitutional prohibition to say the Commercial Lien is illegal. If he’d seen or found any evidence that the lien was illegal — anything at all — it would certainly have been cited in his affidavit. Instead, the sworn affidavit of the president of the Florida bar offers not one single citation to support his apparent hope that the CLS is illegal.
OPEN SEASON
According to the U.S. Constitution, all powers not specifically granted to government are reserved to the People. Which means that if the laws don’t specifically say you can’t do something, you can do it until the Congress legislates otherwise or the Supreme Court rules to the contrary. Which means, the “new creation” of the Commercial Lien is legal and lawful until law can be found or made to the contrary. Since Mr. Dimond didn’t produce any previous law to prohibit the CLS, it appears there’s no previous prohibition and the CLS should be lawful until some future date when Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise. And that means, at least for now, it’s open season on corrupt government officials.
Lawyer Dimond seems to agree. He points out that the CLS “…causes irreparable harm to the system of the administration of justice.”
Oh dear me, NO! Not “irreparable harm” to the “system of administration of justice” (not justice, itself). Oh, pulleeese! ANYTHING but that!! Why…why, the very thought of it is enough to jus’ make me swoooon.
Well, better stock up on smelling salts, Scarlet, cuz if lawyer Dimond’s right about the paucity of defenses and remedies against the CLS, the entire government’s about to pass out cold.
Faced with the CLS’s “direct attack on…the general reputations of those named in the `lien’”, and even though the CLS “may negatively impact on their financial credit rating,” Dimond will only concede that “some of damage may be compensable at law.”
“Some?” “May”? Hardly the optimistic prognosis the defendants had hoped for. He’s equivocating. Mr. Dimond’s limp assessment of their chances to sue to recover damages caused by the CLS should scare every corrupt government official in the USA into packing his bags for Brazil. And it gets worse (or better, depending on your point of view).
Even though Dimond claims the CLS is “an abuse of civil process”, he nevertheless concludes that the Lien “cannot be adequately remedied by an action at law.” Although Dimond does not absolutely say there’s nothing government officials can do to protect themselves against the Commercial Lien Strategy, he comes pretty close. At minimum, he’s warning the government defendants that they’re in a losing proposition, and even if some kind of later litigation “may” generate compensation for “some” of their damages, that compensation will be, at best, inadequate. In short, they’re going to lose more than they can ever hope to recover, which means they’re gonna lose. Which means the Commercial Lien Strategy is solid.
In fact, it appears so solid that Dimond predicts the CLS “will probably have a negative impact on [corrupt government officials’] willingness to continue to serve [steal] as representatives of the United States”!
Reader, do you understand what you just read? The president of the Florida bar has stopped just a few words short of saying the Commercial Lien Strategy is so powerful it will probably chase corrupt officials right out of government!
It’s one thing to read the theories and notions of paralegals, pro se’s, and would-be writers like myself that fill the AntiShyster. We’ve shared some good ideas on the CLS but, still, it’s hard to trust our judgement. But when the president of the Florida state bar implicitly agrees that the CLS is so strong that his best advice to government officials is “RUN, YOU MUTHA’S! RUN!!!”, well, you gotta agree the Commercial Lien Strategy looks a whole lot more reliable.
A word of caution: Although I interpret Mr. Dimond’s remarks as a general commentary on the overall Commercial Lien Strategy, he was only talking about a specific Commercial Lien which I have not seen or published in the AntiShyster. Just because he was impressed by one Commercial Lien does not mean all liens (including those published here) are similarly formidable. No matter what I say, no matter what Mr. Dimond says, you must do your own research, and personally confirm the CLS before you start “liening on” government officials.
A word of celebration: It’s impossible to read Mr. Dimond’s sworn opinion on the CLS without wanting to pass out the party hats and horns. One of America’s premier lawyers is unable to declare that the Commercial Lien Strategy is illegal or unlawful, can’t offer much hope that those who are “liened on” will be able to sue to recover for damages, and implicitly concedes that those who properly file Commercial Liens aren’t likely to be sued for damages.
It’s too early to break out the champagne, but it looks like we’ve got a chance to take back our government.
Cheers.
http://www.obamacrimes.com/thebirthcertificate.html
Click the “next” button at the bottom of each web page, to proceed to the next web page.
In his analysis, Polarik shows a couple of legitimate “Certification of Live birth” sample images, for purpose of comparison with Obama’s published Certification of Life Birth.
I notice that the code “[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]” appears at the bottom right of all of Polarik’s samples. This leads me to suspect that the code “[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]” is merely a part of the form on which the COLB is printed, and may not be pertinent to the source document(s) from which the COLB information was derived.
Please check this out before devoting too much time in developing a class action lawsuit on the basis of this code.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
- Steve
1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” See “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Citing similarity with other lawsuits…
my new blog
because it has DIGITAL PHOTOS OF THE LAWS
and
Google has removed it from their search engine.
http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com
Ms. Cris Ericson
I tried to leave a comment with my name and it was blocked.
Now if terrorist are tried in Civil Count and found guilty, the court namely the Judge is responsible for sigining Death decree…know you know…..
Fellow High School students tell of Obama going to prayer with them wrapped in a sarong…said he looked goffey…tall skinny ! He can recite the Koran in arabic.
He’s not a citizen but if you don’t care that’s OK