Kerchner v. Obama: Defendants Make Additional Request for More Time to Respond
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, made note of the Defendant’s second request for a time extension in this case:
Motion to Extend Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond & Declaration of Counsel has been filed by the defendants. The defendants have already had over two months to answer, move, or otherwise respond. As of the current deadline of May 5th they will have had 75 days from the time they were served to respond. In our opinion, that is an adequate amount of time to answer or move or other wise respond. An objection will be filed to this second request by the defendants for a further extension of time.
As Mr. Apuzzo noted on April 13, the government is always given 60 days by which to respond to any complaint brought against it. On that same date, the federal government requested an additional 15 days by which to respond, making the deadline May 5, 2009 for any motions on their part. Subsequently, per paragraph 10 of the motion, the Defendants have requested an additional 20 days to respond, making the would-be deadline June 1, 2009.
Of the reasons for the time extension request, Assistant US Attorney Elizabeth Pascal mentions that Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have both requested the DOJ to represent them in this matter. Also, per paragraph 8, Attorney Pascal mentions:
“I was unaware that I could move for an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint pending the representation decision for those Defendants”
and that:
“The Department is still processing that request and determining which Congressional Defendants it will represent.”
She also notes in paragraph 11:
“The delay in filing a response in this case would in no way prejudice the Plaintiffs, but would provide a fair opportunity for the Department to respond appropriately to the allegations in the Complaint…”
A footnote to this paragraph states:
“The Second Amended Complaint is extensive, as it is comprised of 12 counts, with 347 paragraphs and 43 single-spacedendnotes of allegations, and a 30-paragraph prayer for relief.”
Kerchner et al v Obama et al – Motion to Extend Time & Declaration of Counsel – Docs 17-1 & 17-2
Update: Mr. Apuzzo, in further comments about this motion, echoed a number of points I raised above, including the following:
Whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for the Office he currently occupies is of utmost national importance. Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer. This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable. As to the Congressional defendants, a twenty-day extension for them to answer is reasonable, making their answer due by May 18, 2009. Given the national importance of the issues, an extension for all defendants to answer by June 21, 2009 is not acceptable.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits and common law grand jury updates can be found here.
-Phil
Phil,
Thanks for your help and great work. Mario has an update at his blog including the text of his Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time that he filed Monday, May 18.
Thanks.
Sorry for the back to back posts. I wrote the first one and it was in moderation for some time so I thought it might have been considered too hard on earl. So I wrote the second post with a little softer tone thinking the first one would be removed, but it wasn’t. I don’t apologize for the first one, I do apologize for the simularity of the two as I thought the first one was not going to be posted. I should have simply waited for Phil to do the moderation. Seems he actually has a life beyond this blog and I was just too impatient.
Sorry Phil! Hope you had a good weekend.
earl,
Who requested the certification of live birth and where is the proof that the document had actually be requested in, say, 2007?
-Phil
earl says,
“I believe Obama, the State of Hawaii, the DNC, the FEC, the State Dept, the FBI, that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961. I don’t need to see his birth certificate. Have you seen the birth certificate of any other President or Presidential candidate in History? Of course you haven’t. Why do you want something different from Obama? You have no more reason to doubt where he was born than you did Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush. And that’s all that matters: where he was born, everything else put forward as a “requirement” by the “he’s not eligible”ers has no basis in US Law.”
earl you can beleive whatever you wish but the problem is you do not KNOW. Your argument about Reagan and Bush is another attempt at deflecting the issue. If you wanted to see their birth certificates you could have asked, you didn’t, so that is not the issue.
And finally earl writes that my request for a long form birth certificate has no basis in US law. How else can we KNOW that he meets the requirements of Article Two of the Constitution, you know that document that is the basis for all US law, without the ability to confirm he meets those requirements? No one has vetted the documents because they are sealed. earl, let’s say he is not 34 years of age, would he be eligible, well NO. So let’s see if he meets the requirements, it really is pretty simple. Just show the document, not a possibly photoshopped digital image of a certificate of live birth but a real birth certificate. It’s just not that hard, it is not difficult, it is simple. So why are we spending one minute discussing it? Just prove you are indeed eligible to be POTUS and I’ll move on. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, then we can KNOW and not just have to BELEIVE.
Having a passport is not the issue, Reagan and Bush are not the issue. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility is the issue. Deal with that.
earl says,
“I believe Obama, the State of Hawaii, the DNC, the FEC, the State Dept, the FBI, that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961. I don’t need to see his birth certificate. Have you seen the birth certificate of any other President or Presidential candidate in History? Of course you haven’t. Why do you want something different from Obama? You have no more reason to doubt where he was born than you did Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush. And that’s all that matters: where he was born, everything else put forward as a “requirement” by the “he’s not eligible”ers has no basis in US Law.”
I could not care less what YOU believe. Your belief is just your guess, you have nothing but a possibly forged digital jpeg as the basis of your belief. Every person who runs for office has to be eligible to hold that office and has to be able to prove they are eligible. If you didn’t think Reagan was eligible you could have asked him to prove it, you didn’t. Reagan and Bush both had parents who were US citizens, Obama did not, does that make a difference? Once again circular thinking and providing a false premise to support your unsupportable position. Reagan has nothing to do with Obama and Bush has nothing to do with Obama and a passport has nothing to do with being a “natural born citizen”. Once again you miss the point entirely and argue positions that are irrevelvant, typical obot. You contend my asking for his eligibility has “no basis in law”, you surely are kidding, RIGHT? Have you read Article Two of the Constitution? You know the document that is the basis for ALL OUR US LAWS? So let me ask you, if Obama was 29 could he be POTUS? NO! If he is not a “natural born citizen” he can’t be either. Do you know, earl, that Obama could have been born in Hawaii and still not be eligible to be POTUS? That tricky Constitution, how dare it have qualifications! So it’s time to stop hiding and show the documents. In case you don’t understand what a “natural born citizen” is, and I’m sure you do not and probably do not care, I’d suggest some reading. Then you might be able to approach this situation with some understanding of the issues. But that’s not your style is it earl? You prefer to stay cozy in what you believe and the heck with the facts. No basis in US law, you are quite a piece of work.
Phil says:
May 15, 2009 at 8:11 am
“This is what anyone who questions the President is asking for>”
Ahh, but Ms Lines is a documents expert. She was asked to determine if the BC posted on line was authentic. She said she couldn’t tell without examining the original document. That’s what I’d expect from a documents expert: ” I can’t tell if a scan online is authentic”. Yet she did not effort to go to Chicago to examine the original when Obama invited anyone to do so. Instead, she wants to see a document that people think may have more information about Obama’s birth than the equivalent to a birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii. That’s not a documents expert, that’s a “he’s not eligible” er trying to justify learning things that the law says she’s not entitled to know.
earl,
On this, I could not agree with you more. This is what anyone who questions this President is asking for.
-Phil
Texas-Ben says:
May 14, 2009 at 8:47 pm
“So you’ve seen his passport? Where did you see it? I know you have not seen it and any “citizen”, even a naturalized citizen can get a passport.”
I don’t need to see his passport. His passport would list the place of birth on his birth Certificate: Honolulu, Hawaii. When a naturalized citizen gets a US Passport, it lists their original place of birth. Didn’t you know that?
I believe Obama, the State of Hawaii, the DNC, the FEC, the State Dept, the FBI, that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961. I don’t need to see his birth certificate. Have you seen the birth certificate of any other President or Presidential candidate in History? Of course you haven’t. Why do you want something different from Obama? You have no more reason to doubt where he was born than you did Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush. And that’s all that matters: where he was born, everything else put forward as a “requirement” by the “he’s not eligible”ers has no basis in US Law.
Phil says:
May 14, 2009 at 8:20 pm
“intellectual honesty”
Ms Lines is not saying she couldn’t examine the original from the which the scan was made and determine if it was authentic. What she is saying is that she wants more information than the official record provided to Obama by the State of Hawaii provides. This is one of the most specious arguments of the “he’s not eligible”er’s arguments: that the “vault copy” birth certificate held by the State of Hawaii would provide different information than what is on the Certification of Live Birth. I never heard the term “vault copy” until this started. In fact, it is not a term used by record-keepers for the state of Hawaii.
Dear Phil –
Texas-Ben’s a keen one. Obfuscation is the main thrust of the Obamarama. Bet your bottom dollar that this usurper’s had several passports in his life, not all from the U.S!
Gen. Apuzzo must be stirring the pot quite well to get such a variety of comments. Nice work on your part to call an “Obot” obtuse, when warranted. The government is shaking in its boots, and the People (military men and others) are regaining control.
Best,
Joe
You wrote:
“I didn’t say that. What I said is a passport is equivalent to a birth certificate because you use a birth certificate to prove your identity. Obama has a passport, he presented a BC with his birth place to get it. Not a digital image. Come on.”
So you’ve seen his passport? Where did you see it? I know you have not seen it and any “citizen”, even a naturalized citizen can get a passport. They are, however, not eligible to be POTUS. I never said he doesn’t have a birth certificate, I’m sure he does, but no one has seen it, vetted it and verified that he is truly a “natural born citizen” and thus eligible to actually be POTUS.
My point is still a valid one, you can’t even enroll for youth soccer with a digital certificate of live birth, much less confirm your eligibilty to be POTUS. Your response was off topic by bringing up a passport. You bots are all so much alike, no semblance of critical thinking just circular logic. “LOOK OVER HERE!! HE’S GOT A PASSPORT!” When that has nothing to do with the issue.
earl,
Remember, I have the posting that completely contradicts your spin of Ms. Lines’ affidavit.
Let’s have a look at what she actually said for the ump-teenth time, shall we?:
What did she actually say that disputes the certification of live birth? Ah, yes, the following:
Just in case you’re being really, really, really obtuse today, I’m going to repeat the take-away sentence once more:
If you are going to be intellectually honest in this endeavor regarding the question of eligibility, then you must clearly accept the fact that not only (1) is there a difference between the certification of live birth and the “vault” birth certificate (even if we’re talking about the literal piece of paper produced in 2007 versus the piece of paper produced in 1961) but (2) Ms. Lines has sworn in affidavit form that the certification of live birth is inconclusive with respect to determining eligibility.
Perhaps you could re-read this comment another dozen times just so that I don’t have to repeat this same commentary again.
However, since it bears repeating, I have zero problems in repeating it over and over and over and over — and did I mention over? — again.
Enjoy!
-Phil
Phil says:
May 14, 2009 at 10:31 am
“The fact of the matter is that there are at least 2 forensics experts — something you already know — who have deemed the certification of live birth inconclusive with respect to determining eligibility. ”
One of them said you couldn’t tell without looking at the original that was scanned. Yet she did not accept the opportunity to examine the original at Obama HQ in Chicago. Why didn’t anyone go look? The people that looked, FactCheck, Snopes, Fox News, to name 3, have said it is authentic.