Eligibility Update: Kerchner v. Obama Declaration, Washington Times Ad, Easterling v. Obama Rumor, Other News
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, filed a Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009 (a brief background can be found here):
Kerchner v Obama DOC 21 Declaration Opposing Motion to Extend Time Answer FILED 5-18-09
The lawsuit is getting some press coverage as well. What follows is an ad that can be found on page 11 in the May 18th Washington Times National Weekly edition…
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Advertorial in 20090518 Issue Wash Times
The following tid-bit was found on Craigslist. It has to do with Dr. Orly Taitz’ case, Easterling v. Obama, and since I’m not able to find any actual sourcing for it, consider it rumor at this point:
May 18th, 2009
I called the Supreme court and asked about the Easterling et al v Obama et al, that was hand delivered Friday morning. I was told that it went through the anthrax scan and an analyst is reviewing it. I was not told who is the analyst. Bottom line, I asked for a Stay pending receipt of the vital records, that I am seeking from the Supreme Court through the Writ of Mandamus. Stay is something that can be decided by one Justice only, there is no need for the whole court. It is like a stay of execution of a prisoner. Only 3 copies are required and typically stays are reviewed by the Justice within a couple of days, very quickly. They can’t say that I need to submit more copies-stay requires only three. It is very similar to a stay that I filed in Lightfoot v Bowen. If Lightfoot was deemed to be filed properly as an Application for a Stay and distributed by the Chief Justice Roberts to the full court, then this one should be deemed to be filed properly as well. I left messages, but didn’t hear back. The name of the Chief clerk is William Sutter, he is a former Judge Advocate of the military. Maybe he can appreciate the importance of the need for resolution of this matter, as active duty military cannot take orders from Obama, until they know that he is legitimate, that he is indeed a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution. [...] We are not asking for any special favors, I am not asking for a closed doors meeting, like they had with Obama, a party of interest, a few days before my Lightfoot case was to be reviewed in conference by the full court, I am asking the clerks to simply post it on the docket and forward to Justice Souter.
Bob Campbell at AmericanGrandJury.org posted the following this weekend:
The Arkansas State Grand Jury made BIG news this weekend. Using the American Grand Jury evidence this jury took the process one step further. They convened a “live” hearing with 18 members, studied the testimony and evidence, deliberated the charges and put it to a vote. The hearing lasted for approximately 4 hours and the tally was unanimous: All 18 jury members voted to indict Obama. [emphases original]
As further evidence supporting his legal opinion, Mario Apuzzo took some time to talk about “Unity of Citizenship at Birth” (excerpted):
Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. “Natural born Citizen” status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.
…
The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the “natural born Citizen” clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Also, Andy Martin continues his foray into document gathering as he produces a movie on location concerning the President’s background. Rev. Sam Sewell shares his analysis on the psychological operations of propaganda as I continue to wonder:
Is Barack Hussein Obama really a Muslim and, if so, what does that mean for America?
-Phil
HistorianDude,
And your inability to be intellectually honest with me in these kinds of discussions once again brings another thread to a grinding halt (much less making it worth my time and energy to read past this sentence in your comment).
-Phil
Christie:
Science would tell us that you have that exactly backwards.
That’s Laugh:
I also have not proven that the earth is spherical or that water flows downhill. These are not controversial issues requiring documentation. She is a Federal Cop. Call her and ask.
I did.
Phil:
Nonsense. When a case is dismissed, the dependents have won and the plaintiffs have lost. Period.
That said:
1) Donofrio got to he Supreme Court without having failed the hurdle of “standing.” The briefs offered were specifically on the merits of the case. It was denied.
2) In Hollister v. Soetoro, Judge Robertson directed Phil Berg to appear in his court and establish the merits of his case prior to being certified pro hac vice. Berg has no excuse for failing to schedule the single best opportunity any Birther lawyer has had to date to get the merits of the case heard in court.
And yet the “swaying” of members of the Electoral College was a key focus of Birther efforts for weeks leading up the the State Certifications. Your attempt to soft pedal what was another dramatic failure of the Birther movement is understandable, but not particularly convincing.
Before we consider these “inconsistencies” (you really should look that word up before you use it again) let’s note again that this was also the subject of weeks of Birther efforts, and delivered another goose egg.
Nonsense. Objections were called for 51 different times, as required by law. This is to occur after each State’s submission (the extra one being Puerto Rico, I believe). There is no Constitutional requirement for a call for objections at all… the process is defined by statute, not the Constitution. And there is no requirement for a final call for objections after the polling has taken place.
I swear, one of these days you guys should get around to actually reading the law.
And not a single member of congress, House or Senate or even Dick Cheney expressed any concern in the eligibility of Barack Obama for the Job.
Excellent observation. This was only one opportunity for Birthers to have convinced a single person in a position of influence that they actually had a real issue. It was only one of several instances where the Birther movement was completely and conclusively dismissed as nonsense.
HistorianDude,
Mr. Selectively Obtuse ™,
My commentary directed to you had to do with your own interpretation (isn’t that what opinions are, anyway?) of what Mr. Madison said; it had zero to do with Mr. Madison, per se, and could not have, as I cannot, by definition, speak for a dead man.
-Phil
“Oh, face reality. Barack Obama is not only eligible to be President of the United States, he is President of the United States.”
We perceive reality and it is: Obama and his gang, using white guilt and black racism, scammed the American people. He doesn’t have a birth cert. and only one American parent.
It’s time folks like this dude faced the larger reality: Obama is a willful puppet, a usurper, a felon, and a treasonous fraud and he will be exposed.
How’s the Hope and Change working for you, dude?
That’s Laugh says:
May 22, 2009 at 3:30 am
“First, HD, you have not proven that the woman in question is a Federal Cop, not have your proven there even exists a definition of federal cop; Wikepedia could be re-edited between the time it takes us to exchange posts, certainly as a Historian you must realize that it is not a reliable source? But I do admit that the link I gave was hastily read, it says nothing about her being a seargeant of arms at the Supreme Court, so we have yet no confirmation of your assertion that she is a cop, let alone a law enforcement officer at the Supreme Court. You like slipping in unsubstantiated assertions to bolster your arguments, which otherwise would have no substance.”
Krista Giaccio is a federal law enforcement officer for SCOTUS, threat assessment. Call SCOTUS and ask. 202-479-2369.
ramjet767 says:
May 21, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same”
That’s not a legal citation, that’s a table someone’s built to show what they interpret the law to be. The table is wrong and not based on definitions of citizenship in current law. I find it discouraging that American adults are so easily influenced by “official” looking documents and “official” sounding statements that aren’t official at all.
Phil says:
May 21, 2009 at 11:03 am
“As far as I know (having done next to no research on Mr. Jindal at this time), Mr. Jindal was not anything other than an American citizen at birth, unlike Mr. Obama. We’ll have to see what further research turns up.”
HA!
Phil wrote:
Here in the real world, nonstarter is a subspecies of loser.
Phil says:
That would not constitute facing reality, no. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
What’s unreal is your refusal to face the result: Obama’s Presidency means you birthers lost, which was the point at issue.
Be as Clintonian as you like, but I’m going to stick with facing reality. When your case is dismissed and of your prayer for relief you get nothing, that’s “lose”. Same deal when you write to your representative in congress about how Obama isn’t eligible, and they certify his election without objection.
T.A. Laugh wrote:
Seond, Brygenon,
The link was: http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ
Note where the page says “Search in this book”, followed by a text entry box then a button labeled “Search”. Note the button labeled “Download PDF”. At the time of the book’s publication such technology did not exist, but West Publishing made the original paper version searchable by placing the entries in alphabetical order. “Natural born citizen” is on page 4664.
While we’re on it, another citations under that entry:
The term “natural born citizen” of the United States” means all persons born in the allegiance of the United States. United States v. Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789.