Brockhausen v. Andrade: Judge: “This Court has no Jurisdiction”; Update: US Attorneys Getting Involved

by Phil on 01/23/2009

While we await any word from the Supreme Court concerning Lightfoot v. Bowen (the disposition of which could come as soon as 2 – 3pm ET today), the following is a report from the Star-Telegram.com:

A district judge threw out a case Thursday filed by a Round Rock women alleging that President Barack Obama has not proven he is a natural born citizen, one of several such cases filed around the country in recent months.

Jody Brockhausen, who runs the Web site, obamaverifybirthplace.com, wrote in her lawsuit that the Texas Secretary of State’s Office should decertify Obama’s name from the state’s 2008 election ballot unless it receives documents proving that Obama was born in Hawaii.

A Williamson County district judge dismissed the case arguing that Brockhausen did not have standing.

Brockhausen alleged in her lawsuit that Obama may be unqualified to be president because it is unclear if he meets the Constitution’s citizenship requirements.

Conservative activists raised questions about the circumstances of Obama’s birth last year and filed lawsuits in several states. The Supreme Court has declined at least eight appeals asserting that Obama is ineligible to be president due to doubts about his birth.

Obama’s campaign released his birth certificate in June. It showed that he was born in a Honolulu hospital at 7:42 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961. Hawaii officials have said the birth certificate is authentic.

A call to Brockhausen was not returned Thursday.

Ed Hale, a conservative activist and rancher from the Texas Panhandle town of Wellington, has continually questioned Obama’s eligibility, first on his Web site devoted to Hillary Clinton supporters backing John McCain, and more recently on his online radio Web site, plainsradio.com. Hale said he and other activists have spent thousands of dollars helping fund lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility around the country. Even if every suit is dismissed, they will never accept Obama as president, he said.

“He’s not a bad man,” Hale said. “He’s just not a natural-born citizen. He does not qualify according to what the Constitution says.” [highlighted emphases mine; corrections in Ms. Brockhausen’s Letter to the Editor, below]

Update: Jody Brockhausen had the following inspiring words to share:

There are some very good developments which can be shared later, but just so you know, Dr. Orly Taitz was present in court with me and represented me as my attorney.  Isn’t that just amazing?! She flew in at 12:20 AM Thurs. morning and a volunteer from Plains Radio’s chat room came forward after about five minutes following Ed Hale posting the need in the chat room.  They arrived at my house at 4 AM and we arrived in court at 8:50 AM.

The details of the case you can discuss with Orly if she wishes.
There was a good showing of fellow patriots who listed to my interview on Plains Radio Wednesday at 7 PM.  Many people could not believe Orly Taitz was coming to Texas to help me with my case.  It was just a miracle that is all there is to it!

Update: Thanks to commenter “Poppet” for pointing the following out from Dr. Taitz (probably what Jody was referring to in terms of additional info, above):

I wanted to thank everybody for concern and well wishes. I just got ome from TX after some 48 hours with only 3 hours of sleep.

TX judge Burt Carnes has allowed me to represent Jody Brockhausen against Secretary of State of TX, he has signed my application to represent her Pro Hac Vice (out of state attorney), but his decision was that he has no jurisdiction to hear the case in the state court.

It looked like his mind was made even before the hearing. He asked Assistant Attorney General how much time does she need, she stated 15-20 minutes, his response was that he needs only 3 minutes. He didn’t even ask the plaintiff if she needs any time. When I protested, he originally was not willing to let me talk. When I asked him to allow me to represent her pro hac vice, pro bono after I made an effort of flying and driving from CA all night long, he stated that he didn’t sign pro hca vice application, at which time I told him that there is nothing preventing him from signing it now. He finally agreed. I’ve stated that the examples given by the AJ relate to Fed Court and issues before the elections.

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in TX law or precedents preventing a citizen from having standing and presenting a grievance and seeking resolution of violation of her civil rights in seeking verification of eligibility and legitimacy of the siting president. Judge Carnes provided no response and simply stated that there is no jurisdiction and pretty much told us to go, which we certainly did by going straight to the US attorney’s office with a criminal complaint whereby my client’s civil rights under 1st, 14 9 and 10th amendment were violated. If there is no jurisdiction in Federal court and State court, then the citizens have there civil rights de facto taken away from them and they are reduced to a level of slaves. A group of patriots and I had a meeting with Assistant US attorney Chris Peele and Chief US Attorney for the North-Western district of TX for Criminal matters, Chris Peele . Mr. Durbin agreed to hear the matter and asked for our paperwork. We were shocked to find out how little they knew about the matter. Mr. Peele told us that he was under the impression that the case was heard on the merits. They had no clue that no Obama ineligibility case was ever heard on the merits, not one judicial subpoena was ever issued and nobody has ever seen his original birth certificate.

Currently we are coordinating efforts to schedule personal meetings of groups of volunteers with Chief US attorneys for criminal matters in each and every district of the US. Mr. Ken Burr and George Lewis will be in charge of this projct.

Update: And it keeps going. Ms. Brockhausen sent the following letter to the Editor of the Star-Telegram.com (with receipt by the editorial page Editor):

I’ll send this information to the news department which is responsible for coverage of news stories. 

Paul K. Harral

Editor of the Editorial Page

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

TYPE OF SUBMISSION: Letter to the Editor

BODY OF SUBMISSION: 

Dear Editor,            

I received a message at 10:00 PM from your reporter covering my lawsuit and I am sorry I was not able to talk to him prior to the story running in the Star-Telegram about my court case.  I am pleased you felt the story was newsworthy to cover.  I would like to clarify a few things:

You state:
A Williamson County district judge dismissed the case arguing that Brockhausen did not have standing.”

This is not true, he ruled that his court did not have jurisdiction.

You state:
“Obama’s campaign released his birth certificate in June. It showed that he was born in a Honolulu hospital at 7:42 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961. Hawaii officials have said the birth certificate is authentic.”

What the Obama’s campaign posted on a website  was not a “birth certificate,” it was a “certificattion of live birth” (COLB).  This is very significant as it is only required for “the parent to have lived in Hawaii at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”

[§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]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344

You state that “Hawaii officials have said the birth certificate is authentic.”  If you view the original statement released by the Hawaii officals, you will find the official actually states:

“…have personally seen and varified that the Hawai’i Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”  
See original here: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

Thus knowing that it is common practice for those born outside of the state (and the country) to obtain a Certification of Live Birth (such as has been posted on Mr. Obama’s website) one can surmise that an official “viewing Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate on record” does not mean that it is a Hawaiian birth certificate.  To be “in accordance with state policies and procedures” says to me that COLBs are not only for those born in Hawaii.  The document they are showing as proof that Obama is a Natural born Citizen (as the constitution requires) is not proof of birth in the US or Hawaii for that matter.  

If presented a COLB, Hawaii requires supplementary documentation of proof of birth in Hawaii, as a  COLB is not proof of a Hawaiian birth or of a US birth for that matter.  This from the Hawaii Homelands site:
In order to process your application DHHL utilizes information that is only found on the original Certificate of Live Birth…  This is a more complete record of your birth than a Certification of Live Birth…  Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer generated certification requires additional verification from DHHL.
One can see that a Certification of Live Birth is not sufficient by Hawaii standards of proving birth in Hawaii (or the US).  
Note the difference between a “Certification” and “Certificate:”
Here is a link to the Certification of Live Birth which Obama provided:
Here is a link to a Certificate of Live Birth: 
For your interest here is an affadavit stating Obama’s grandmother was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya:  http://peoplespassions.org/Exhibits/SarahObamaInterviewTranscript.pdf
Also, you stated that “A district judge threw out a case Thursday filed by a Round Rock women..”  The word should be singular, “woman.”
Please provide corrections to the story which ran today in the next running of your newspaper.  I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
 
Best regards,
 
Jody Brockhausen
[the above updated from her site]

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil

There are 35 comments in this article:

  1. 01/23/2009Sharon 2 says:

    Phil,

    When I first looked at this page, you were questioning the source of the information of Obama’s time of birth. I was just curious as to that source.

  2. 01/23/2009Riddlemethis says:

    If “We the people” don’t have standing, who the hell does?

  3. 01/23/2009"DON'T WORRY BE HAPPY" says:

    SIMPLY, IF WE USED THE SAME PROTEST SYSTEMS THAT BO USED TO COERCE HIMSELF IN OFFICE, HE AND ALL HIS CRONIES, POLITICAL PIMPLES, NOW EXPOSED, WILL BE FOREVER REMOVED.

    BUT WE HAVE TO GET OFF OUR FAT DUFFS AND PROTEST INTIMIDATELY, JUST AS OBAMA, AND CREW DID.

    LAW SUITS, AND BLOW HARD STATEMENTS IS NOT ONLY WHAT HE USED? RIGHT?

  4. 01/23/2009Phil says:

    Sharon 2,

    You are correct. Then I realized that the FightTheSmears.com web site’s certification of live birth did, in fact, show the date and time of the President’s birth, but not the specific hospital. In the article, that is similarly all that was stipulated, only to add “some hospital in Honolulu.”

    Therefore, the reporter is basically correct, except for saying that HI officials have said that the original birth certificate has been released, which is not true, nor is the certification a copy of the certificate. Rather, the certification is a short form of the original certificate.

    Thanks for the question,

    -Phil

  5. 01/23/2009Phil says:

    Riddlemethis,

    Since we the citizens do not directly elect the President nor the Vice President, then, in theory, a Secretary of State, Elector, or other similarly-classed official would have standing (or so the theory might play out).

    We’ll see what happens with Dr. Taitz’ suit currently at SCOTUS.

    Thanks for the question,

    -Phil

  6. 01/23/2009Anonymous says:

    Phil,

    I posted a few times over at americasright, but this is my first post here. I was thinking that wouldn’t one have standing once he/she has been caused some sort of harm by Obama? So as soon as one of the bills in Congress becomes law, or an executive order affects an individual, that would be harm, would it not? So if a citizen has to pay even a penny more in federal tax because Obama signed it into law, would that not be harm?

    Thoughts?

    ANR

  7. 01/23/2009Manfred says:

    SCOTUS and the lower courts are proving that they lack standing with the citizens of this republic.

  8. 01/23/2009Phil says:

    Anonymous,

    In my opinion, that could certainly be a possibility, though there’d obviously have to be a lot of research into precedence for such a case.

    Thanks for the question,

    -Phil

  9. 01/23/2009Volubrjotr says:

    Reporter stated….

    “The Supreme Court has declined at least eight appeals asserting that Obama is ineligible to be president due to doubts about his birth.”

    This is a misleading statement, as SCOTUS has declined on the basis of procedure only and not on the facts of ineligibility as here with Brockhausen. The State/Congress/SCOTUS are all playing a tennis match as no one really wants this hot potato. But the pressure is on and sooner or later all the extraneous loose ends on this hot potato will be cinched so tight that SCOTUS will indeed have to look at the merits.

    What SCOTUS is waiting for at the moment is the decision from the 3rd Lower Court Circuit (Its a matter of ‘procedure’ again) Berg Case.

    Remember, a COLB (certificate of live birth) is not a Birth Certificate. For example a person could show up in Hawaii with a Kenya Original Vault Birth Certificate and then be issued a Hawaii COLB. Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

    Since Hawaii issues “Certificates of Live Birth” to children not born in Hawaii and “Birth Certificates” to children who are born in Hawaii, and Obama spending over $800,000.00 to prevent disclosure of his ORIGINAL VAULT BIRTH CERTIFICATE to SCOTUS on 12/01/2008, one can easily conclude ZERO TRANSPARENCY.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger recused himself for running for the Presidency as he stated he was born in Austria. John McCain instantly showed his Original Vault Birth Certificate when they questioned his birth place and now all of a sudden we have more Chicago Thuggery from Barry Muhammad Soetoro.

    Obama’s Bush Part Deux is only beginning and this time what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  10. 01/23/2009JeffM says:

    Phil,

    Since the primary elections of each state dictate which electors are selected, we as citizens are directly tied to the election process.

    Without our vote, the states would be in a crisis and wouldn’t know which electors to send.

    One empirical test to this “do we have standing?” argument is the “tie breaker” vote. If an election in a state like California means the difference of one vote and that state’s electors will dictate the outcome of the election, which voter would be considered to be the tie breaker?

    Since every vote is equal, every one of us could be considered the tie breaker. That being said, our vote does have merit and we are directly tied to the election and, in theory, we can completely swing the entire election with just one vote. Just because it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

    Therefore any result of that election that has harmed this right means we have standing as citizens on any election we vote in. What the courts are saying here is that “your vote doesn’t count because you’re not an elector”. And the response I would say to them is “if our vote doesn’t count and we don’t have standing, why are we voting at all?”

  11. 01/23/2009Phil says:

    Volubrjotr,

    Ms. Brockhausen’s Letter to the Editor — now updated in the posting — goes even further with the points you make.

    Thanks for the comment,

    -Phil

  12. 01/23/2009Phil says:

    JeffM,

    Could you show me where in the Constitution that citizens are in any way “directly tied to the election process?”

    Don’t forget — there is no constitutionally-established right to vote. Therefore, I would like to see some evidence that backs up your assertion.

    Not trying to be mean; simply trying to be factual.

    Thanks for the comment,

    -Phil

  13. 01/23/2009da verg says:

    jurisdiction is issue here, none.

    no rights for plaintiffs, is issue here, not standing

    also, left out , is regardless of what’s on the BC, OBAMA is STILL not a natural born citizen.

    By his own words, OBAMA sr. was a not a US citizen, to be natural born, both parents MUST be us citizens. OBAMA is a ururper, he doesn’t qualify under the constitution.

    he must go, or be removed from office, he is compromised.

  14. 01/23/2009Volubrjotr says:

    Thank you;

    This part from her update above is a very good explanation of the differences between COLB and a Birth Certificate.

    “If presented a COLB, Hawaii requires supplementary documentation of proof of birth in Hawaii. As a COLB is not proof of a Hawaiian birth or of a US birth for that matter.”

    Volubrjotr

  15. 01/23/2009Gina says:

    I’m probably reading too much into the body language and granted, he is new to the job, but ever since Tuesday and the flubbed oath, Obama just seems hesitant and not the cool, suave guy he was the last two years. Also, when he entered the press room yesterday to say hello, the reporters hit him with questions and he didn’t like that and said he wouldn’t repeat the visit again.

    I think he knows these cases are gaining traction, thanks to Orly, and is a bit nervous.

    Just an observation.

  16. 01/23/2009Phil says:

    Gina,

    While that could be a consideration (after all, virtually all of his background documentation has been sealed from public view; what does that say?), my view is that he’s finally getting into the “machine:”

    1. National security issues are now squarely his responsibility;
    2. Watching Congress deal with legislation is like watching meat being ground — it’s not pretty; there’s already evidence — Bush’s tax cut sunset — that he’s at odds with the Speaker, and that’s just one issue;
    3. Drudge’s current headline story is what happened when he went down to meet the press. Neither he nor the press was to happy with his “I just came down here to meet you folks, not to get grilled” response.

    Thanks for the comment,

    -Phil

  17. 01/23/2009rxsid says:

    Phil,

    The Hawaiian law that I and others have referenced…appears to have only become law in 1982. If true, this particular law would therefore not pertain to Barry’s birth. Can we get confirmation on when this law really was enacted and/or was there a similar law that preceded this one? Strange that this law only came into being in 1982.

    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. –> [L 1982, c 182, §1

    I’ve seen a COLB (apparently) issued to a famous Chinese leader, in the late 1800’s:
    Hawaiian short form COLB for a famous Chinese leader, born in China
    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SunYatSen.jpg
    If that really is a real short form COLB from that time, there must have been another law other than 338-17.8. Clarification on this issue would be much appreciated!

  18. 01/23/2009Roderick says:

    SCOTUS has been bought off. They are as corrupt as the government itself. Roberts stated in the middle of December that the Justices of the Supreme Court need a pay raise. The reason he stated this is simple. Shortly before this as the $%^& was hitting the fan the Democrats came barging in his office and told him “plata o plomo” which in Spanish means “money or lead.” This is one desperate hombre. He has a drug problem that won’t go away. He is a disgrace to our Constitution. He is going to be uncovered. I am as opened minded as the next guy. These people want to keep passing the Jurisdiction football around. They are full of blankety blank blank blank. I don’t care where he was born. Nothing he does is going to make my life go backwards. His “presidency” is a black hole in time. Nobody respects him but criminals and stupid people. At the end of the Nuremberg trials 22 men were found guilty of war crimes. It could happen again. Several of those men were sentenced to death by hanging and had their ashes spread over the Rhine River. Stay tuned more to come in an upcoming episode.

  19. 01/23/2009Carol Greenberg says:

    Anonymous:

    I was one of the 2 in OH to file against SoS Brunner. One of the reasons I lost was yes, the issue of standing; but furthermore because I could prove no “damages.” The judge was looking for some monetary harm. I argued back that I was in a state of confusion, i.e. because I wasn’t convinced that BO was an eligible candidate, I therefore was unsure whom to vote for. He didn’t buy it. No damage. I also quoted SCOTUS case Jenness v. Fortson, 403 US at 442; which states that “a State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or FRAUDULENT candidacies.” He didn’t buy this either, saying it was taken out of context. He did however let me take as much time as I wanted. I think he was intrigued about this issue. Brunner’s AG counsel, however; shot me down in about 3 minutes. I did get a chance for rebuttal as well.

  20. 01/23/2009C says:

    Phil,

    In Ms. Brockhausen’s Letter to the Editor, she refers to the document Obama posted on FactCheck.org as a ‘certificate of live birth’, trying to correct the newspaper article which called it a ‘birth certificate’.

    But my understanding is that the ‘certificate of live birth’ IS INDEED the equivalent of a ‘birth certificate’ in Hawaii (i.e. the vault copy long form, hand typed on typewriter in 1961, often photographed and stored on microfilm to save storage space), and that what Obama posted is a certifica-TION of live birth (short computer print-out containing less information than the original).

    It’s the Hawaiian certifica-TION of live birth that’s given to parents registering a birth occurring outside the state, and which muddies the water considerably. I know of no other state which will issue ANY KIND of birth certificate to someone born OUTSIDE its boundaries. Correct?

    So Ms. Brockhausen didn’t completely clarify the issue in her response to the newpaper article, because she didn’t call Obama’s FactCheck.org forgery a ‘certifica-TION’ of live birth. I believe she needs to contact the newspaper again to clear this up, or the confusion may continue.

  21. 01/23/2009Phil says:

    C,

    Your point is well-taken.

    Thanks for the comment,

    -Phil

  22. 01/23/2009CH says:

    The misuse of “standing” used against voters in the courts is clearly anipulative and abusive. Voters are voting for a slate of electors because of the candidate the slate of electors are commmitted to. Each candidate has a different slate of electors. The vote for a candidate is tied to the vote for the slate of electors. Therefore, to have a valid vote, the candidate has to be qualified. Otherwise, the voter cannot choose the slate of electors. Trying to substitute electors for candidates is smoke and mirrors. The harm done to one voter is done to all voters, if the slate of electors are tied to an unqualified candidate. Each vote counts. Each voter counts. Each voter represents all voters, because each voter is encountering either a qualified or an unqualified candidate with his slate of electors when voting. The courts using standing to dismiss voters are operating in an abusive, illegal and unjust manner, and rather than serving justice, they are aiding and abetting fraud, and protecting unlawful, unqualified candidates, rather than protecting the vote of lawful citizens. I believe the symbol of justice is a woman blindfolded, to show impartiality and fairness. Many of the courts seem to have taken off their blinfold, and are commited to injustice and aiding criminals and ballot fraud, rather than serving justice and protecting the law and the citizens, each citizen, and thus all citizens.

  23. 01/23/2009Phil says:

    CH,

    Excellent commentary. Now if we could get an attorney to encapsulate what you’re saying into a proper legal argument, we might get somewhere.

    -Phil

  24. 01/23/2009JeffM says:

    Phil,

    It doesn’t have to be stated in the Constitution. We are constitutionally allowed to vote. Otherwise, there would not be an Amendment XV or XIX. Citizens don’t have standing based on federal election law. We have standing based on state election law. Article II specifies that the State Legislative branch is responsible for determining the method of choosing its electors who ultimately elect the President.

    And since nothing in the Constitution bars nor empowers us to vote for electors, Amendment X takes over, stating the authority lies with the states, or with the people. The states have the authority to grant this right. The states have the authority to remove this right. The states also have the authority to prosecute based on the abuse of this right.

    Note the following:

    “Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).”

    Current or future harm can be done whenever electors who we vote for are chosen illegally. The nature of that harm is the real question. And that leads us back to the popular vote. Since I vote for the electors, the harm that is done to me is that my vote has been nullified by another vote being tallied for an illegal candidate. It has damaged my ability to effectively choose those to represent me in the Republic. And that’s why voter fraud is a criminal offense in all “57 states” as Obama would say.

  25. 01/23/2009Phil says:

    JeffM,

    Excellent argument. After all, the Constitution doesn’t specifically stipulate the right to vote, but that we are allowed to vote, as you so presciently put it.

    And so therefore the Judiciary in this country has a conundrum:

    Since we are a Union of several States, we have an aggregation of States coming together on a specific date to allow the People thereof to vote for federal officeholders. The Constitution certainly requires each State to determine the “how” in the process of electing officials.

    However, with respect to the presidency, this is where things get interesting. The Electoral College (while the phrase is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the term “Elector” is certainly discussed in Article II) is, specifically, a federal, and not a State, entity.

    In telecommunications, there is the concept known as the “line of demarcation;” especially on a phone line, the dividing line between your (customer premise) responsibility and the phone company’s. This could, by analogy, be the same way that this federalistic concept works: You, a part of a class of individuals known as the People, are allowed to vote for an Elector, a part of a class of individuals known as the Electoral College, which, in the aggregate, has the right and obligation to directly pick the Executive.

    Therefore, according to all logic, an Elector should have the right to question a candidate’s eligibility, while a member of the People simply are allowed to vote or not to vote. That’s what I get from all eligibility-based case activity to date.

    Have we found a loophole in the system?

    Thanks for the excellent comment,

    -Phil

  26. 01/23/2009MommaERadioRebels says:

    Hi,

    I just want to tell you that tonight’s show is on and it will be a DOUBLE WHAMMY OF GUESTS AND THE LAST GUESTS WILL BE A SCOOP. There will be an Attorney that will give us some updates on what he is going to do to continue the fight against Obama.

    The last Guests will be the lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner v Obama case that was just filed on the 20th and his Attorney Mario Apuzzo!! This case was filed on the 20th and is against Obama, Congress, the Senate, the House of Represeantives, Richard Cheney and Nancy Pelosi, for violation of our 1st, 5th and 20th Ammendemnt Rights!!

    I am going to keep the first Attorney’s name quite, so that no one can contact him and convince him not to appear on the show, as has happened before. This is being done so that those that want to see us fail can’t spread it to other sources that are working against us. He will give us what time he can tonight as he does have other commitments. I told him that we would be grateful for any amount of time he gave to us. I am releasing Mr. Kerchner and his Attorney’s names because no one can keep them off of the show no matter what they say!

    All kinds of good things to talk about and it will be 90 minutes of hot topics, updates and fun. It should be a HOT, rocking show, as well as interesting. We will be discussing the things she would like to see happen for our Country, our Constitution and the swearing in of someone for President that is NOT eligible under Our Constitution to be President of the United States of America!

    Please post this on your web site, blogs or any blogs you are associated with or have access to and send to everyone in your address book. There will be another Fast Blast that will be sent 2 hours before the show!

    Link, schedule, call in number and times for the Show is below!

    http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels

    Call In # 347-237-4870

    5:30 PM Pacific Time

    6:30 PM Mountain Time

    7:30 PM Central Time

    8:30 PM Eastern Time

    I hope to see you all there. There are 3 ways to listen to the show, they are as follows:

    1. When you get to the Show page if the show doesn’t immediately start playing for you,
    you can click on the radio on the right, minimize the page and listen while doing something else.

    2. You can enter the chat as a Guest and read what is being said while listening.

    3. You can register/log-in and chat while listening.

    The choice is yours.

    I hope to see you all there.

    MommaE

  27. 01/23/2009JeffM says:

    Thanks Phil!

    You mentioned something that intrigued me. I did some research and discovered the requirements and qualifications for electors.

    It is clear that elector qualifications are defined at the state level. Based on this information, the electors are representatives from each state and are therefore under the jurisdiction of its laws. There is no mention in U.S. Code nor the Constitution that defines these qualifications or affiliation for electors. They are also bound by the state’s Law and/or Pledge.

    I would say based on this, one could easily make the argument the electors must abide by the laws of the state, making the separation between the U.S. government and the state governments that much clearer.

  28. 01/25/2009jerry alford says:

    ref. to article by ch. seems that you have hit on a good idea. get in touch with phil berg or his asst. lisa @ obama crimes.com. im sure you have heard of him. thanks.

  29. 01/25/2009Marie Devine says:

    Now that Barack Obama has allowed himself to be sworn in as president in Washington, DC, he has placed himself in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court there with a verifiable offense. I would expect that his late filing of SSS registration and falsifying and hiding various records would be within reach of the court. Since the evidence is against him, he would have to produce records. My unqualified opinion is, we are in a good position to end this presidency.

    God rejected King Saul for seeking a witch and ignoring His ways and Barack Obama read 4 Harry Potter (witchcraft-sorcery) books to his little daughter, much to the pride of his wife. I expect God will reject him if we want the word of God to rule over us in truth as “It is written”, not according to religious teachings and error passed down through generations. The way is prepared before us.

  30. 01/26/2009Jody says:

    I am really pleased that the judge in OH at least let you take all the time you wanted. When we got in the court room here in TX my judge asked the defense how much time they thought they needed, they replied 15 to 20 minutes. The judge then stated that he thought we could be done in 3 minutes.

    It was very ugly.

  31. 01/26/2009Maureen says:

    What does him reading 4 books of the Harry Potter series have to do with this issue? If you have actually read the books of Harry Potter you will see that they are not what ‘so many’ make them out to be. On the contrary, they have strong ties to good and evil; the battle of it and how love can out win any form of evil before it. But regardless, I don’t see how him reading to his children those books has anything to do with the issue.

  32. 01/26/2009berlin says:

    hello phil,

    i am a new immigrant to the usa, and now a naturalized citizen. during that process of immigration, i had to disclose and provide all documents of my live from a-z.
    i am stunned that a person for the highest position does not have to show any and all documents. (birth certificate, school records etc.)

    greetings

  33. 01/26/2009Tex says:

    da verg says: “By his own words, OBAMA sr. was a not a US citizen, to be natural born, both parents MUST be us citizens. OBAMA is a ururper, he doesn’t qualify under the constitution.”

    So true, if you can’t put him in prison for the above you can’t put him in prison at all.

    I think the BC is a Red Herring as it is plain that he is not a Natural Born Citizen.

    I think a back room deal was struck back in 2004. Why else do you get the same canned reply from all the Congress people. They are smarter than a rock.

    Until someone carries out the law there is no law.

  34. 03/14/2009Brockhausen v Andrade - Post Mortem « Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored says:

    […] Source: theRightSideofLife […]

  35. 12/19/2009Julie says:

    The corrupt people involved in the Kaufman County Texas court system are tearing families apart. More than one of my friends have had these people take their children from them for no reason. Howard Tygrett (judge) and atty Eric Williams, Linda Duggan (counselor), and Kaufman CPS are involved. These people need to be impeached and removed and that is for sure!

    i found several things online about these things also and one of the sites is http://www.kaufman-tx.com and also look up the people listed above on http://www.RipOffReport.com

Write a comment:

You have to log in to write a comment.