Kerchner v. Obama: USA, Obama Granted Time Extension Request
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, posted on his web site that two of the Defendants, USA and President Barack Hussein Obama, had asked and were granted a 15-day extension for time to respond:
Two defendants in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, Barack Obama and the USA, have filed an “Entry of Appearance” and have requested a 15 day extension to the time allotted to them to respond. This is beyond the 60 days they were provided initially. When the government is the defendant, the government is given 60 days to respond. With the filing today, they asked for another 15 days and the court granted it. The new response date is May 5th, 2009. For more details see the documents at SCRIBD.com or the court filings list in the right frame.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
TexasVoter,
As I mentioned in this posting yesterday, yes, we’re awaiting word on what the results have been.
-Phil
Should this case have seen some activity due yesterday, May 5th, 2009? Wasn’t there a ruling due on the defendant’s request for an extension?
“Explain how Kerchner is going to overturn a 206 year old SCOTUS Precedent set in Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137
(1803)?”
If you can’t answer this simple question, how are you going to win this case?
An open letter to Elizabeth Pascal:
Please don’t forget to disclose THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 (1814), and Vattel’s Law of Nations, to the Honorable James B. Simandle, and to the Honorable Joel Schneider, in your Answer to Mr. Kerchner…
To fail to disclose THE VENUS and Vattel’s Law of Nations in your answer would be a breach of the Model Code of Professional Conduct.
Model Code of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3:
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal…
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
With regard to Vattel, the Supreme Court of the United States, in THE VENUS, specifically stated, “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”
Vattel’s Law of Nations, § 212, states “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Hence, natural born citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Unfortunatley, your client’s father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was not a citizen of the United States.
Thus, even if Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, he is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United Ststes of America.
Thus, your client is a usurper, and you are obligated to disclose this FACT to the Honorable James B. Simandle, and to the Honorable Joel Schneider, of the United States District Court, District Court of New Jersey.
brygenon says :One of the…. lawyers claimed that Barack Obama is, even now, a British citizen. Utter nonsense of course.
Not nonsense in my opinion. Here is a recent case a person, Sanjai Shah was born in Kenya in 1962 rendering him citizen of the UKC at birth, became an automatic Kenya citizen in 1963 at it’s independence. At that time, dual citzenship was allowed for children, his were, citizen of the UKC and Kenya citizen. He denounced Kenyan citizenship after age 21 and was left with the sole citizenship of the UKC. He had to fight for that right as an
adult but ultimately the UK honored it’s obligation. So if Obama
was born in Kenya he is still a citizen of the UKC.
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005-07-04/uk/kenya_airport_man.htm
Practical Kat,
If you are a lawyer, then you should know that these are Google AdSense ads; that’s not difficult to pick up on, especially as other sites run exactly the same types of ads as mine. They are not specific to any one “sponsor.”
Again, your tone is rather abrasive, especially when you know better. I’d suggest toning down before I need to take further action.
-Phil
Dallas wrote,
You seen to have misunderstood the point at issue. One of the birther lawyers claimed that Barack Obama is, even now, a British citizen. Utter nonsense of course.
Hey Phil, thanks for running the ad at the top of this page that goes to http://www.capitolconnect.com/fairhealthcare — that’s a great cause and I am glad to know that you are doing your part to help visitors to your site sign on.
brygenon says: The U.K. does not think Obama is a British subject, and neither does Obama.
You are Playing with words, brygeon. Obama was not born a Britsih subject he was born a citizen of the UKC, Obama himself says he was born a “citizen of the UKC”. Wouldn’t he know? Factcheck:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was a…. citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
So yes, the the UK knows he was not born a british subject and so does Obama II… He was born a citizen of the UKC.(CUKC) And it was not soley by descent.
Phil though,
First, the clues I post are from me to the readers. I don’t speak on anyone else’s behalf.
Here a free on-line source, from the British government:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/independence?view=Binary
Jo,
This issue has been addressed here.
-Phil
Just read a disturbing article. Apparently Obama and his thugs are working on a “new” birth cert. According to the article, typewriters, papers, chemicals have been purchased. Some in Canada to reproduce a b.c that would look like one from the 60’s. Why else does he want an extension? Source says it should be ready in 1 – 2 months.
Everyone ask, why is the press and others not taking this on? If you search enough, you will find accusations of bullying to actual threats.
Regardless, facts are facts. He lost his citizenship when he went to indonesia.
Maybe we do need another “tea party” and have the citizens demand all his records be releases.
This man has way too many connections for us to wait. The sooner he is declared an userper, the better off we are. WHAT ARE WAITING FOR!!!
brygenon,
To speak on behalf of the UK and/or Obama must mean that you can cite your sources.
-Phil
JeffM thought:
Jeff, you have all the proof you need for the world in your head, but here in the real one you lose every time. The U.K. does not think Obama is a British subject, and neither does Obama.
Obama already won. The open question here is how much defeat the birthers need to heap upon themselves.
Here’s the reason why Soetoro filed for an extension: because he can.
And as far as the burden of proof, here’s all the proof you need:
Soetoro was born under the jurisdiction of the Crown of England and continues to be a subject under the Crown of England.
Evidence is a plenty. Just check fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org. No one can be a leader of this nation when they are a subject under the jurisdiction of another nation. Article II guarantees this for obvious reasons. And the War of 1812 reinforces this predicament.
Time for Soetoro to let go. He’s going to lose this fight. Hence all scurrying around to steal more money before he gets tossed out.
Bob,
I really do think you protest too much, and the evidence is right in front of your face.
Do you really think I’d even allow you to publicly comment on how much you don’t like the way that I allow you to publicly comment if I were so against having different viewpoints?
Nevertheless, being tolerant means tolerating intolerance, no matter how irrational someone wants to make an issue. And you’re certainly making a mountain out of a molehill on this issue.
-Phil
Nothing like leaving out context.
Your hypocrisy really speaks for itself.
Apparently you’re still a little sore over my removing certain aspects of comments that I don’t think are conducive to the ongoing discussion on my site.
Leó Szilárd is entirely correct: “[unneeded verbiage]” is Code for “Phil doesn’t like,” as demonstrated by its obviously one-sided application.
I think any reasonable individual would conclude that my stance is a far cry from completely eliminating one’s opposing viewpoint being said in a comment.
Your stance is arbitrary, censorious, unevenly applied, and has a chilling effect. Welcome to the echo chamber of Taitz, Berg, Apuzzo, etc.
But keep on defending our freedoms.
Bob,
Nothing like leaving out context. Maybe you should work for CNN!
Apparently you’re still a little sore over my removing certain aspects of comments that I don’t think are conducive to the ongoing discussion on my site. I think any reasonable individual would conclude that my stance is a far cry from completely eliminating one’s opposing viewpoint being said in a comment.
-Phil
On March 9, 2009, Phil said:
I allow all to comment with their respective views regardless of whether or not I agree with them.
On April 16, 2009, Phil said:
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to speak; it doesn’t guarantee the right to be heard. The same is true with my site.
For the times they are a-changin’.
Leó Szilárd,
Surely you know that the blogosphere is wide open and that each site operates as it sees fit.
Assuming that this is true about you, then you should know better than to post such a comment. After all, you are typing my site’s domain name into your browser’s address bar and taking the time to post commentary here. If you don’t like my site, there are plenty other sites on which to spend your time.
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to speak; it doesn’t guarantee the right to be heard. The same is true with my site.
-Phil
I’ve noticed that “unneeded verbiage” is added to posts that make sense, while posts offering nonsense are kept verbatim.
Yep, Freedom of speech is certainly alive here.
Sure am glad Obama is the president and you’ll never be able to do squat about it.
Now go add the [unneeded verbiage] tag now or whack this entire post.
You know you can’t help your compulsion to feel empowered.
Jacqlyn,
“”….I doubt these attorneys are taking lots of time off of work to go around and represent Mr. Imposter free of charge…..don’t you think they have to make a living too???”
Why not? Isn’t that what Dr. Taitz, Berg, Kreep, Pidgeon, etc. are doing? Oh, I forgot, they have a “donate by paypal” on all their blogs, now don’t they? President Obama’s lawyers haven’t had to take much time off now have they? “Motion to dismiss; Granted.”
The only lawyer that I have stated that is working pro bono for President Obama is the one that stated this in the article in Politico by Ben Smith that was posted here.
For Phil,
With 40 co-sponsors, HR 1868, a bill currently in the Judiciary Committee and sponsored by Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia, intends to amend sec 301 of INA by clarifying who is a US citizen and a US national a birth. Would passage have any effect, one way or the other, on the citizenship/nbc status of Obama? I just happened upon the bill, and in this climate of suspicion and political shenanigans, I thought it was worth brining to your attention. Am I needlessly concerned?