Friday, February 24, 2012

Orly Does Indiana

MR. DUMEZICH: The next proceeding will be consideration and cause numbers 2012-161, 162, 163, and 176, which have been filed in the matter of the challenge to Barack Obama, candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States. Since more than one individual has filed a challenge against this candidate, we'll begin at the front of the room, you'll recognize yourself as the first challenger who wish to present, identify yourself to the court reporter. Again, after that first challenger, just add anything you have in addition.

[Housekeeping discussion.]

Mr. King, can you report on the documents in the record?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the challenges, notices, and documents submitted by parties have been included in the commission's binder and pursuant to the procedural rules are admitted into evidence.

MS. RIORDAN: Could you repeat that last sentence, Mr. King?

MR. KING: I think the last sentence I stated was, and pursuant to the procedural rules adopted, the documents are admitted into evidence.

MS. RIORDAN: I don't want to admit them until somebody goes through them, if we could consider that as a commission. Okay, so I would ask that the commission would wait before admitting all of these exhibits that have been submitted so we have some sense of their provenance.

MR. DUMEZICH: Let's just say that they've been lodged with the commission, how's that?

MS. RIORDAN: [Inaudible]

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, with that in mind.

MR. KESLER: My name is Edward Kesler, K-E-S-L-E-R. The four of us who have lodged the CAN-1 form are -- will be represented by Dr. Orly Taitz, T-A-I-T-Z, and our issues are concerning, identity issues, passport issues, Social Security Number issues, and education issues, and with that, I'd turn it over to Dr. Taitz.

MR. ?: I've got a question before we take any witnesses. Can you cite as to some law in Indiana or the United States that makes the candidacy on our ballot -- that's the only issue here is is whether the President of the United States is an eligible candidate to be on our ballot, under our laws, that anything, any reference to a Social Security Number and any require -- I'm asking you the question.

MR. KESLER: The Constitution of the United States requires certain things.

MR. ?: Does it require a Social Security Number?

MR. KESLER: No, but --

MR. ?: Okay, that's my question. Is there any law that you can cite us to that requires a Social Security Number, valid or otherwise, as a prerequisite to being candidate for the United States of America, for the President.

MR. KESLER: No, sir, there is not, but with that kind of reasoning, any illegal alien from Mexico wouldn't have to have one either.

MR. ?: Surely you're not contending the President is an illegal alien from Mexico.

MR. KESLER: No, sir. I did not say that.

MS. TAITZ: But from Indonesia.

MR. ?: Okay, all right.

MR. KESLER: Perhaps from Indonesia.

MR. ?: And are you aware that the Indiana courts have ruled that President Obama is a citizen of the United States?


MR. KESLER: I have not been made aware of that, and the fact of being a citizen of the United States does still not qualify one to run for the highest office of the land.

MR. ?: All I'm going to say to you today is we've come here -- and my position is very simple. The evidence you're offering is under oath.

MR. KESLER: Yes, sir.

MR. ?: And you'd best well have proof, because to offer testimony under oath can be a crime in this state, and your testimony may well be certified to the prosecutor of this county for review. We have been for four years hearing people nationwide talking about the birther movement, and Ms. Taitz is all over the news on this issue, and I'm just telling you, I don't think that's an issue in this thing here today.

MR. KESLER: Sir, with having listened to you, I'm not concerned about the birth certificate, whether it's valid or not. I really am not. But what I am concerned about is that none of us were really given a proper chance to vet this gentleman the last time around. I want to make sure he's vetted this time.With that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Taitz.

MS. RIORDAN: Ms. Taitz, Dr. Taitz, are you a member of the Bar of the State of Indiana?

MS. TAITZ: I'm not here as an attorney. I'm here as a witness to authenticate all of the evidence and all of the documents that you want authenticated. I'm the researcher who's done all the research.

MR. ?: Then Mr. Kesler said that you're here representing him.

MR. KESLER: Well, she is our spokesperson.

MS. TAITZ: He is -- he misspoke. I'm here only as a witness, not as an attorney.

MR. ?: Then, as far as I'm concerned, procedurally you will be asked questions and you will be answering them as a witness. We're not here to hear a five-minute dissertation as to whatever you wish, on things you wish to -- that's at least my position. I'm certainly not the chair, but I don't --

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, [inaudible] your witness, if you're a witness, start by asking her questions.

MS. TAITZ: Okay, I'm not a challenger, there are four challengers [inaudible].

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, but let's stop for a second. Sir, are you done? Have you -- because what I want to do is I want to make sure we exhaust every challenger so they have an opportunity to ask their question, and then we can get done with it. Have you --

MR. KESLER: I have explained what I had brought forward as challenges to his --

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, so then at this point, your challenge is done, and you've turned it over. So please whatever you do, don't duplicate anything the first challenger has said, and only bring forth new evidence, and remember, you're limited to five minutes.

MR. SWIHART: My name is Carl Swihart, S-W-I-H-A-R-T. Orly, what evidence do you have to bring forth today?

MS. TAITZ: Okay, with that I will provide and authenticate the evidence, and according to Indiana code 3-8-1-6 and 3-8-2-14, the candidate for the U.S. president has to be a natural born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which --

MR. ?: Tell me what evidence you have he was not born in the United States.

MS. TAITZ: Yes, sir. First of all, what does natural born citizen mean? According to --

MR. ?: Ma'am, we're all attorneys. I think we know what natural born citizen means.

MS. TAITZ: Okay. Okay. First of all, the evidence shows that Obama is not his legal name, and I brought forward a declaration that was obtained on the Freedom of Information Act showing -- and you have it in your packet -- that in Mr. Obama's mother's passport records he is listed under last name Soebarkah. They lived in Indonesia, and in his school records he is listed under last name Soetoro. You have no legal right to put on the ballot an individual under last name that is not even his. Who are you putting on the ballot? Mr. Obama or Mr. Soetoro or Soebarkah?

MR. ?: Do you have -- show me evidence -- we're going to -- I will treat you with the respect that you deserve, and I expect to be treated the same. Show me the evidence that you have that this person you're identifying in Indonesia is Barack Obama, and I want you offering that certified, properly certified authenticated records from Indonesia that you're identifying as [inaudible].

MS. TAITZ: Sir, yes, first of all, this is from the United States of America Department of Justice. You received two Federal Express packages with the records of -- under Freedom of Information Act that were received passport records of Miss Stanley Ann Dunham, deceased mother of Mr. Obama, showing -- and you have it in your packet -- that in her passport records he is listed under last name Soebarkah. So this is not the last name of Mr. Obama. He was supposed to be here and rebut this evidence, and first of all, with prior candidates, you have issued a default ruling when the candidate did not show up to rebut any evidence, and before we even go into this, I would like to know why a default is not being issued against Mr. Obama. Is there preferential treatment against somebody who is --

MR. ?: You are a witness. You are a witness.

MS. TAITZ: Okay, Mr. Swihart will ask.

MR. SWIHART: Okay, I'll ask why there isn't a default.

MR. ?: I'm going to object to that question, because it's totally irrelevant for you to ask -- you don't ask questions to us.

MR. SWIHART: Okay, why isn't there a default against Mr. Obama?

MR. ?: We're not here to -- we're not witnesses and --

MR. SWIHART: Okay, I demand a default judgment.

MS. TAITZ: Default ruling.

MR. SWIHART: Ruling, I mean, excuse me.

MR. ?: I move to deny your motion for the default. There you go. I'll make that motion.

MR. DUMEZICH: Do I hear a second?

MS. RIORDAN: Second.

MR. DUMEZICH: Okay, all in favor of the motion to deny a default judgment, indicate by saying aye.


MR. DUMEZICH: [Inaudible.] 4-0, ayes have it. So let's do the opposite side of this, so that way we can --

[Brief discussion.]

MS. RIORDAN: So now we're going to turn to whether you meet your burden, and so far I don't think anything -- any of these documents have been properly authenticated. I don't know where they came from. I don't know why they should even be admitted by the commission.

MS. TAITZ: Ma'am, I have presented --

MR. DUMEZICH: Excuse me, excuse me. Just so you understand what happened was he asked for a motion, right? At that point, the motion was denied, okay? Now --

MS. TAITZ: I wonder why.**

MR. DUMEZICH: Yes, it's denied. Now, here's the other part of this. Now, because he did that, because he started it off, they have now made a motion going in the opposite -- or they're going to make a motion going in the opposite direction, which is going to be whether or not to leave him on the ballot, okay?

MS. TAITZ: Yeah.

MR. DUMEZICH: And then it will be closed, okay?

MS. TAITZ: Okay, the evidence that I have provided in this 300-page packet presents testimony. I as an attorney conducted a court hearing in the state of Georgia, and I provided you with court records from the state of Georgia where seven witnesses testified under oath, under penalty of perjury, and there is nothing to rebut it by Mr. Obama.

MR. ?: But they're not here to testify in front of us. We can only hear testimony given by others.

MS. TAITZ: Yeah, so you have some 300 pages in the packets that were sent to you of sworn testimony from the administrative court in the state of Georgia. You also have evidence, exhibits that were admitted into evidence in the state of Georgia. So I'm here to authenticate, yes, what you have is indeed the -- a court transcript and evidence from the court hearing in the state of Georgia where I was an attorney.

MR. ?: You're offering this into evidence.

MS. TAITZ: Yes, I do.

MR. ?: I would move that we deny this evidence, because it is not properly certified, and you hold yourself out as an attorney. You would know that you're not the person to certify court records. So these are not certified records. You've got a packet of several hundred pages of whatever it is, and it's not certified. So you're offering into evidence as records of another court, or of a court in the state of Georgia, among other things, and I do not believe it meets any standard for admissibility as evidence under either the administrative adjudication act or any of the rules of procedure which we are familiar with. So my motion is to deny these documents as exhibits.

MS. TAITZ: Okay, I will continue --

MS. RIORDAN: I'll second that so that we can discuss that just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I've taken a look through these 300 pages, and they're actually not --

MR. DUMEZICH: Let me just make sure I get this right. There's a motion on the floor. I've heard a second. I can now move for discussion. Discussion to Member Riordan.

MS. RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've reviewed these materials, and actually they're not 300 pages of sworn testimony. There are several unnumbered pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is a so-called legal document that you drafted, no grounds for admission, 100 percent hearsay. And then we have several pages of typed transcript, which I've read some of, and it's actually pretty ridiculous, but again, 100 percent hearsay, inadmissible, and there are a number of other many illegible documents, totally unclear where they came from, whether they were printed off the internet or just some random other source. Nothing that is appropriately before the commission. There's been no personal authentication or certification or any reason put forth why this body should be taking the public's time to even review these documents for a minute. And so with that, I would ask that unless there's any more discussion, I'd like to call the question on the motion to deny the admission of this evidence so that we can move forward to looking at this on the merits.

MS. TAITZ: I have more evidence aside from what was provided.

MR. DUMEZICH: We're in the discussion phase of the commission at this point in time. The way that I look at this, you've submitted these documents. These are lodged with the commission. Regardless of what happens today, you have a remedy, which is a judicial remedy, which would be more appropriate. Frankly, I would get an attorney in Indiana, okay, that's licensed here, to put together a case, because what I can see in front of me, and I've reviewed these documents -- and believe me, I'm not a fan of Barack Obama, but he is the President of the United States, and he should not be subjected to this sort of evidence that is unsubstantiated. That's a problem. That's a problem. It's all hearsay.

MS. TAITZ: Sir, it's not hearsay. I have evidence. You're not willing to listen, because you have decided, and this lady has her decision and her mind made before this even started, just by saying this was ridiculous. What is ridiculous? I personally -- I provided my affidavit. I'm here to authenticate my affidavit. Can you explain to me as an attorney what is ridiculous in me authenticating my own affidavit? Can you explain what is ridiculous in that?

[Brief discussion.]

MR. DUMEZICH: Could we have a motion on the floor?


MR. DUMEZICH: Whoa, whoa. You're out of order.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay, well, you're out of order.

MS. TAITZ: You're all out of order.

MR. ?: I would ask that this gentleman be removed from the chamber.

MR. ?: Yep.

MR. ?: You're disruptive of a meeting. Could we have security come in, please?


MR. DUMEZICH: Absolutely, and if you're a challenger, you take your time and you come up and you do it.


MR. DUMEZICH: I didn't attack anybody.

MS. TAITZ: Yes, you did. You wouldn't let us speak.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: [Inaudible]. People have a right to speak.

MS. TAITZ: And you don't let us speak. You made your mind before I even started. Why don't you let me speak and provide authentication for my own affidavit? Let the people of the state of Indiana and the media see the evidence.

MR. KESLER: Mr. Chairman, may I speak before you finish up? I would say that you were very cordial when I first sat down. You, sir, were not. Ma'am, you were not. Whatever you do with the challenge is entirely up to you, and we accept that. However, the fact that you instantly jumped on my case over something like the Social Security Number -- do you realize that the man uses the wrong Social Security Number? Wait a minute, wait a minute.

MR. ?: So what?

MR. KESLER: It's fraud. That's the what.

MR. ?: Then take it to the House of Representative and seek to have him impeached.

MR. KESLER: And you know what they would say? Well, we can't impeach him because, gosh, he's probably not the president. What would you do then?

MS. TAITZ: Sir, sir, we need to provide evidence.

MR. DUMEZICH: This has turned into a -- you know what, let's go to a recess. Five minute recess.

[Brief recess.]

MR. DUMEZICH: Quiet, please. We're going to reconvene in a moment. What we're going to do is you'll have your time to make your presentation. Anything that you want lodged, put into evidence, we're going to take and lodge with the commission, which means it's not accepted into evidence, but there's a record of it so you can do whatever you want to do with it procedurally after that. Okay, what I would like to do --

MS. TAITZ: [Inaudible]

MR. DUMEZICH: Excuse me, I'm speaking. I'm going to say this once. One person talks at a time. This is not the Spanish Inquisition here where people are arguing back and forth. I let a dialogue start that I shouldn't have. Okay, I'm not going to make that mistake again. You'll have your opportunity to present. Members of this commission will question you when that's up, when that time is up, and then we'll go to a ruling. But your documents will be lodged with the commission.

Okay, yes. I want a clock, a five-minute clock.

MS. TAITZ: I'm sorry, because four individuals agreed to give me their time, and you stated that you allow five minutes per person.

MR. DUMEZICH: Five minutes and then anything that's not duplicative, okay? So in total, the most you can go is ten minutes under any circumstances.

MS. TAITZ: Okay, thank you.

The challenge for Mr. Obama is due to following evidence. In 2008, when Mr. Obama got into the White House, we did not have sufficient evidence. Today we have sufficient evidence, certified records with signature under penalty of perjury from Department of State showing that in his mother's passport records, Mr. Obama is listed under last name Soebarkah. Even if you would disregard anything, it shows that he is trying to get on the ballot under name that is not his. We don't know who this man is. He is not here to provide any evidence of legal change of name, Soebarkah -- from Soebarkah/Soetoro.

Next, in Indonesia, in his registration for school in Indonesia, Mr. Obama was listed under last name Soetoro, citizenship Indonesian. There is no evidence -- Mr. Obama is not providing any evidence to show that his citizenship is not Indonesian. Furthermore, Mr. Obama personally posted online his tax returns. Even though the Constitution does not state that you have to have a valid Social Security Number, the question is Indiana Constitution states you have to be natural born citizen. How do you prove that you're natural born? You can prove it by having valid identification papers, and the basis for this challenge, that Mr. Obama does not have any valid identification numbers, that the records show that he is using a stolen Social Security Number that was issued in 1977 in the state of Connecticut to an individual born in 1890. This man is a criminal, ma'am and gentlemen, and you are covering up forgery and Social Security --

MR. DUMEZICH: Whoa, whoa. Let's stop. Stop right there. Present your case. We're not covering anything up. We're allowing you to speak your mind and putting it before the commission. If you're disrespectful like that one more time, your butt's going to be gone. You got that?

MS. TAITZ: Okay.

Mr. Obama has posted, personally posted online, his tax returns. In 2008 he posted online his tax returns. I'm testifying that I personally saw his tax returns and saw them through Adobe Illustrator, and thousands of U.S. citizens could see those tax returns through Adobe Illustrator. When you --

MR. DUMEZICH: Do you understand what you're holding in your hand? That is not an income tax return. That is a form 709. Do you know what that is?

MS. TAITZ: This is a page from income tax return of Mr. Obama that he personally posted online. I did not bring the whole tax return. I brought just one page to show that on his tax return, when you open it in Adobe Illustrator, he has -- his full Social Security Number is visible. And I also provided in the packet information showing that the Social Security --

MR. DUMEZICH: Please give me that.

[Ms. Taitz presents document to commission.]

Okay, this goes to quality of evidence. This is not a form from an income tax return. This is a United States gift tax return. It has -- quiet, I'm talking.

MS. TAITZ: I didn't say a word.

MR. DUMEZICH: You just did.

MS. TAITZ: What?

MR. DUMEZICH: So, this form is not what she purports it to be. She's just wrong, okay?

MS. TAITZ: May I respond?

MR. DUMEZICH: No, because you're wrong. You can respond to it. This was not filed with a federal income tax return. I mean, you can slap the desk all you want, but the fact of the matter is when someone represents that this is an income tax return that the President filed, it's wrong in its face. This goes to the credibility of everything somebody says. When she's going to tell us that this is an income tax return, it's just not accurate. If this isn't accurate, it calls into question the rest of the evidence.

MS. TAITZ: Sir, this is one of the pages that was filed. Let me correct myself. One of the pages that was filed by Mr. Obama on April 15, 2010. It was a packet of Mr. Obama's tax returns. With it there was this page, gift return.

MR. DUMEZICH: You are now describing it differently than you did in the past.

MR. ?: Is your point that there is a Social Security Number on this document?


MR. ?: All right, pick it up from there.

MS. TAITZ: Yes. Yes, this was posted by Mr. Obama himself on I personally saw it. This is his Social Security Number. In the United States of America, until last year, when Mr. Obama changed it, the Social Security Numbers were assigned by state. The first three digits signified the state. 042 is the state of Connecticut. Mr. Obama was never a resident of the state of Connecticut. That shows fraud on its face.

Moreover, I have my own affidavit that I provided you in your packet. I am here to authenticate my own affidavit that states that I personally went on Selective Service online, those are Selective Service records showing when you go on online verification, you enter a person's last name, Social Security Number, and date of birth. I entered the Social Security Number that Mr. Obama posted himself. xxx-xx-4425. I entered -- I personally entered -- his last name, Barack Obama, and date of birth, to see that he is indeed using this number, and I got the result, and it is in your packet, showing that indeed he is using this Social Security Number, which is a Connecticut Social Security Number. If it would have been somebody who is a latino, who came from Mexico, and the commission or anybody else would have seen this evidence, you would have stated this is a circumstantial evidence of identify fraud, of identity theft.

The only reason not to come to this conclusion is being biased in favor of Mr. Obama, and here I would like to present this for you.

[Ms. Taitz presents document to commission.]

Next, I have self-check E-Verify where Mr. Obama's name was entered, and it says SSA record does not verify.

Next, I have Social Security Number verification systems where Mr. Obama's -- the number that he is using, xxx-xx-4425, his name, Barack Obama, and his date of birth, 8-4-61, was entered, and it says, failed. That's yet another governmental agency. Social Security Number verification systems shows that he failed yet another check.

MR. DUMEZICH: Where are we on time?

MR. ?: It's expired.

MR. DUMEZICH: Wrap up in 30 seconds, please.

MS. TAITZ: Yes. This is Mr. Obama's -- Mr. Obama never showed up to show a valid birth certificate. He doesn't have it. He posted online a piece of garbage, and he's posting it on mugs and teeshirts, claiming that to be a copy of his birth certificate. Where's the certified copy to show? I am just a citizen. I have no access. I on my own dime traveled to the state of Hawaii in order to check the original. The state of Hawaii is stonewalling and refusing to show the original to verify that what Mr. Obama posted online is indeed a true and correct copy of his birth certificate. What was posted went online. When it did --

MR. DUMEZICH: Your 30 seconds are up. Just put the stuff -- lodge it with us, and we'll go from there. Close the record in the matter of cause number 2012-161, 2012-162, 2012-163, and cause number 2012-176.The record's been closed. Your documents have not been admitted into evidence but have been lodged with the commission.I will entertain a motion.

MR. ?: I would move we deny the challenges.

MR. DUMEZICH: Do I hear a second?

MS. RIORDAN: Second.

MR. DUMEZICH: Any discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor of the motion to deny the challenges, please indicate by saying aye.


All opposed, nay.

[No response.]

4-0, ayes have it.

Microphones were left on during brief recess. Some snippets:

SPEAKER: Go to the Social Security Number. You need to jump on that. You gotta show the SSN. You went to their website and showed the truth [phonetic].
MS. TAITZ: Yeah.
SPEAKER: So hell's going to be a hot place for people.
SPEAKER: You're in the right place.
SPEAKER: You're biased already before you even start.
SPEAKER: This is making my day. This is so cool.
SPEAKER: So where's the document that shows Social Security? I would jump right into that, because don't we have to just document it?
MS. TAITZ: [Inaudible] it doesn't say that you need to all have socials, but this is circumstantial evidence of fraud.
SPEAKER: Right. Well, why don't we just get someone to certify it, and it's a done deal. I mean, all we have to do is say -- get an expert and say that's all certified. It's done. That's all we have to do. I mean, get an expert. This has been a joke.
MS. TAITZ: [Inaudible]
SPEAKER: I don't know how they sleep at night. It's incredible. You go to youtube and the stuff on there is, like, Kenya ambassador is saying he's from Kenya.


  1. Yeah, no bias here, huh?
    Another sham decision.

    1. A sham decision would be relying on non-evidence to keep him off the ballot. Since they chose the non-shammy option, I'd say it's far from a sham.

    2. The sham is refusing to even look at the evidence against obama. The sham further is compounded by obama refuses to present any physical proof he is who he says he is. An image of an online "supposed birth certificate" on a computer screen is not certified anything. No state certifies a computer image. Yet ignorant people, or bought off or threatened people, want to pretend a computer image in e-space is the real thing.

    3. wonder how much they got for refusing to look at the evidence this time.

    4. First, in regards social security numbers. Geographic codes were not changed last year as represented by Dr. Taitz. This change occurred in 1972 and even until that time geographic codes had NOTHING to do with location of birth, but location of first application for social security number. Second, Social security numbers, until the 1980's were not required of US citizens, unless seeking employment. In other words many people did not receive their first cards until they went to work. This practice changed in the '80's when one had to obtain children's SSN's for IRS purposes.

    5. It's moot. There is no requirement that to run for POTUS that you have a SSN, valid or not. Only three things, over the age of 35, Born in the U.S., lived here over 14 years. Nothing about an SSN, and no, you cannot infer from a valid or invalid SSN if a person was born in the U.S.

  2. Thanks for the laughs.


  3. I love this. Thanks for the work. Almost makes me feel sorry for Ms. Taitz. She was not prepared and seems not to know what she's doing. I take it back. I don't feel sorry for Ms. Taitz. I feel sorry for the taxpayers who are having their tax dollars wasted in court after court and commission after commission by this. Don't like President Obama? Get out and vote in November. But stop wasting taxpayer money and time on this foolishness.

    1. Just because she is under educated in the procedures of the meeting does not make her wrong. The evidence stands againbst obama. He is too afraid to even show up. He refuses to allow anyone to see or touch a real paper birth certificate with a raised state seal because it does not exist.

    2. She's a member of the California bar, and supposedly an attorney. Being continuously unable to understand basic legal procedures despite being lectured on them by numerous judges just means she's an idiot.

      Oh, and yes, President Obama has allowed people - including members of the press - to see the real paper birth certificate, including the long form he got from Hawaii. Hint: We know he's black.

  4. Replies
    1. You're a gullible fool who doesn't want to see the truth. It does not matter where obama was born. He IS a self-admitted DUEL CITIZEN of both the United States and Kenya. He later transferred his citizenship to Indionesia. So regardless of where he was born, obama is disqualified from being president.

    2. Duel citizen?

      You mean he fights duels? I had no idea President Obama was a skilled swordsman. How interesting.

    3. And Nick, you're ignorant. Indionesia, along with most countries on the planet, do not allow Minors to do ANYTHING with their citizenship. Also, even if he had Dual Citizenship, which he doesn't, it does not preclude him from being POTUS according to the constitution.

  5. Again, no proof from obama, and all evidence against him swept under the rug by bought off poiliticians. NO PROOF stating who obama really is, no hard-copy certified birth certificate...because it DOES NOT exist.

    1. As George Carlin said "Don't try to confuse me with the facts."

      Power to the people!!!!!

  6. Yep, always swept under the rug. All the politicians too chicken to examine the facts, just want the money to throw it out and not even consider it. obama has been a citizen of Kenya, Indionesia, England, and USA...thus does not qualify to be a president, too many conflicts of interest. Same reason they didn't let Swartzeneggar run for president...and he only had nationalities to Austria and USA. How much did obama pay these Indiana politicals off to not even hear the evidence?

    1. Kenya? Indonesia? England? ... Really? England? And there's like.. actual proof, in the way of passports, from.. like England? Seriously dude, you're over the top.

  7. obama thinks all Americans are dumb and gullible...and so far he's been right about far too many. They don't even want to look at the evidence against him because they don't want to know the truth about their "savior obama." look at the mess he's made of our country...same gullibles will vote him back in office.

  8. Antone born of 2 parents from different counties have what they call "Duel Citizenship." By law duel citizens cannot run for the presidency. And obama has admitted himself to have been born of parents with different citizenships, meaning he, obama himself, is a dual citizen at best. At worst, he has had citizenships of 4 different countries before becoming president. So it doesn't even matter where he was born. He is simply not elligible to run. Nick, you're right, too many are too gullible to see this reality. God help us all.

    1. Let's posit that Obama was born in Hawaii. Is it your contention that, because his father was not an American citizen, he's therefore not eligible to be president?

    2. birthers have a host of fall back positions. One of their first is that because of something someone from France wrote in the 1800s about natural born citizens requiring two American citizen parents, magically that means it's the law, and it's what the Founders meant.

      It's absolute craziness, but it's one of about a half dozen theories they have as to why the President isn't a NBC including that as a child he somehow revoked his own citizenship, or that somehow operation of Indonesian law revoked his citizenship, both ideas beyond silly since a child legally cannot revoke his citizenship, and because you cannot have your citizenship revoked because of anything some foreign government does.

    3. There is no law banning dual citizens, but in order to have dual citizenship, it must be recognized by both counties governments. The law about POTUS eligibility states;
      Age over 35
      Born in U.S.
      Resided here over 14 years..

      Maybe, if you actually looked up the laws, but you'd rather look up some dump internet post.

  9. Do duel citizens battle themselves with sabers? I assume mirrors are involved.

    Which law says duel citizens cannot run for the presidency? Can their seconds?

    Pete Duel played Hannibal Heyes in the light-hearted '70s television series Alias Smith and Jones. He indeed cannot run for the presidency for a disqualifying reason not actually outlined in Article II: he's dead. From self-dueling. This is what the Indiana BoE should be investigating!

    I hear there's also something called "dual citizenship," but you can't be talking about that, since having the laws of another country control who can run for president in our country is kind of, well.. you know.

    God help us, in the future!

    1. Hang on, this could work. All we have to do is get some other country to grant Mittens citizenship, and we're rid of him!

      Canada? He's practically a draft dodger... Hey, France... oh, you already had your turn. Anybody? You're ALL sick of Mormons running around loose?

      Hmm. This is harder than I thought. And Mittens has lots of money - how are we ever gonna unload Rick or Newt?

    2. Hmmm. The Caymans might want them, but they're a British protectorate, so the UK might say "hells no." What about Switzerland?

  10. Orly needs to take up some other conspiracy theory as her tin foil hat is showing signs of strain.

  11. For the second time in recent history Obama failed to appear for an Administrative hearing.

    Instead of entering a default judgment against Obama and holding him in contempt of court the Administrative Officers in Indiana found in favor of an absent defendant and threw the case out dismissing all the evidence and testimony as hearsay and inadmissible.

    This is the second time or third time that an Administrative Court has shown extreme favoritism towards Obama and extreme hostility towards the plaintiffs.

    Learn More Here

    Here Is An Interesting Quote From Represent Yourself In Court: How To Prepare & Try A Winning Case, Written By Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara Bergman. Publisher NOLO 7th Edition, Chapter 1, Page 16.

    “ALJ’s (Administrative Law Judge’s) do not normally have to follow the rules of evidence that govern court-room trials. For example you CAN (emphasis added ) offer hearsay evidence.”

    Also from the Indiana Code…(I don’t know it this is applicable to ballot challenges but it’s worth researching)

    IC 31-33-19-3
    Hearsay evidence
    31-33-19-3 Sec. 3. During an administrative hearing under section 1 of this chapter, the administrative hearing officer shall consider hearsay evidence to be competent evidence and may not exclude hearsay based on the technical rules of evidence. However, a determination may not be based solely on evidence that is hearsay.
    As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.16.

    1. Seriously? He has to show up every time some racist idiot makes an accusation? Ok, so if he shows up and wins, does that mean Orly will pay court costs? You guys whine about smaller government, lower costs, yet waste tax payer money on your own mis-understanding of the law~!

  12. These birthers need to take a pill...and Orly keeps pimping them out of their money....Fools.

  13. Do the birthers even believe their own crap? Do we really still have that many unmedicated people wandering around in this country?