Thought this might help people see why the Obama B.C. issue is a bit of a canard, and why they don't bring it into court. Not because it is illegal (or should I say unlawful?) but because it would expose the underlying dynamics of how they are really operating... - ie. I believe he would be found 'not guilty' (as opposed to 'innocent', there's a difference btw...)
In any event, why would this be? Because it is perfectly legal for someone not born in the U.S to be the 'President' of a U.S. corporation. But, if he was found to be 'not guilty' - that would be letting the cat out of the bag, it would expose the whole commercial statutory system (based on benefits and privileges which can be taken away, ie you are much like an employee working for an employer!) in stark contrast to the common law constitutional system... (where you have inalienable rights)... so they (the government) know they are in no danger 'legally' but they also don't want to expose their game, nor educate the public either...
And in case you are wondering... most of us (like 99%) are caught up in the 'commercial' statutory world' (we gave up our rights, by improperly 'signing' a bunch of 'contracts' like SIN/ Health cards, Driver's License, etc.... note: try signing with "all rights reserved, for:[autograph]" and watch the government flip out!) combined with no one having a proper education of what their real rights are (maxim of law: He who sleeps on his rights, has none, period) and think about it, they even warned us... I remember someone telling my me their lawyer told them "never sign anything!..." (and yes he did mean that literally... and again, what that all entails is another story...)
Anyhow, if you see the implications of what is being said here, this should totally blow you out of the water... especially if this is the first time you have been exposed to this type of information...
... it means (for one thing) that the idea of having a separate commercial entity operating concurrently with the constitution, (one thing superimposed over another) was always in the cards, (and even possibly necessary for the government to operate commercially) but somehow these legal 'pirates' have managed to shanghai the 'ship' and drag everyone living on the 'land' into their world of admiralty jurisdiction (the law of the sea, commerce) and thus try and get us to 'forgo' our inalienable rights for a pittance (commercially administered benefits) statutory laws were originally meant to protect free men and women from 'government employees' (...think of the SSN as an 'employee' number...a legal entity in commerce... oops!)
... A lot of people interpret this to mean we have no rights and we are all 'caught' in a trap... well yes and no, not necessarily, for if one were truly educated in their constitutional rights, and understood everything about contracts, and finally the (private/public) trust law system that is overarching all of this, (you'd be a lawyer! - lol) then we could become the master's that we are, and put the servants (government servants ) to task... and one would be able to differentiate between a 'statute' and a 'law' and that too is another story... ...this is the very 'matrix' and 'rabbit hole' 'the' movie alludes to... it goes back generations... (and perhaps centuries and millenia as per Ring of Power/ Empire Of The City - World Superstate) ...and explains a lot ie. US/British military relationship, why Britain started lending money to US immediately after the 'Revolution', etc.
Winston Shrout - History of origin of US presidency and how it sheds light on Obama's 'game' regarding the B.C. issue