50 thoughts on “Kerchner v. Obama: Judge Grants Defendant’s Second Time Extension (Apuzzo Update)”

  1. “Birther” is a relatively new term to me. I didn’t know I had a label. The issue at hand, Consitutional eligibility is anything but a partisan issue. It is a legal one. The Constitution has always, at least until very recently, reigned supreme in America the land of Law. If Obama is Constitutionally invald and “serves,” it sets a Constitutional legal precedent for anyone to run for United States President from ANYWHERE on the globe. I cannot believe that ANY American would support that circumstance. This question is not going away. It’s growing and ONLY Obama can stop it by producing all documentation requested and required to substantiate his status. His failure to do so, thus far, only adds fuel to the fires of doubt. Under NO circumstance should this issue be ignored as it has been lest the American people at large loose complete faith in all American systems. That would be very serious. No need for name calling or anything like it, just a need for Obama or our COURTS to step up to the plate!!

  2. November 15, 2008

    United States Supreme Court
    1 First Street NE
    Washington DC 20543

    Attention: Honorable Supreme Court Justice David Souter

    Honorable Justice Souter,

    We are writing to you with very serious concern for the protection of our Constitution of The United States. We are aware of the suit pending in your court filed by Phil Berg against Barack Obama for Mr. Obama to bring proof of his being a natural born United States citizen. We are joining Phil Berg in asking you to protect us from the possibility of fraud by ordering Mr. Obama to produce an original birth certificate. We do not need to waste your time with details of what Berg has filed, you already have it.

    What we want to share with you is as follows, if you feel the need to verify our credibility, please contact Honorable John Linder, of Georgia, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Conrad Burns of Montana, Thelma Drake of Virginia.

    I enlisted in the United States Army in 1972, as a Viet Nam Veteran I feel I have earned the right to see that the person that is about to fill the most powerful position in the world is truly a natural born citizen of The United States. During my military service I had responsibilities that required top secret security clearances. During the back ground investigations at each level, if I had been associated with a terrorist group, been involved with drugs, found convicted of any felony crimes, etc., I would not have been approved any of my clearances. My father served eight years in the United States Air Force, 11 years civil service in Viet Nam and died of cancer caused by agent orange at the age of 42. Three of his brothers served in the military. My older brother was killed in Viet Nam 1968. My younger brother served 22 years Navy. His three sons are currently in the military taking their turns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our eldest son just returned from Iraq, third tour, one tour Afghanistan, wounded twice. Our son- in- law served four years in the Marine Corps, one tour in Iraq. I can keep going and branching out, my point is our family has given all we have to give our country and have earned the right to have the questions about Mr. Obama be answered. We took an oath when entering the military to protect The Constitution of The United States and most of us I believe will continue to carry that responsibility to our graves.

    Please take this seriously and order Mr. Obama to bring proof that he is a Natural born United States citizen, his original birth certificate. Please do this prior to him being sworn in as President. If he is a citizen, we will go away and support our President. If he is not a legal citizen, we expect our judicial system to do their job as ours will have been done. If he has lied about this, he can not be trusted to the secrets that protect the American people.

    Respectfully,

    Danial

    Pamela

    Cc: Honorable Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Stevens, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Honorable Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito

  3. A proposed narrative to explain the various seemingly conflicting statements made about Obama’s birth in Kenya and Hawaii:

    Underage U.S. teenager gets pregnant via a significantly older married man from Kenya. An unusual event in 1961.

    Mother of teenager is in total shock over the event as would have been many mothers of teenage girls getting pregnant in 1961 and says to her daughter you have ruined your life and will make going to college much harder for yourself and convinces the teenage girl to go to Kenya in the last month of her pregnancy and give up the baby to the Kenyan natural family of the natural father of the child to be raised in Kenya by them.

    The Kenyan grandmother of the child attends birth in Kenyan hospital in Mombasa Kenya and is ready to take custody of the child and raise the child for the foot loose and fancy free natural father with multiple wives … and the U.S. teenage mother is supposed return to Hawaii leaving the child with the natural father’s family and restart her life back in Hawaii minus the child … and go to college. In 1961, pregnant teenage girls giving up children to restart their lives anew was not unusual.

    But nature throws the plan a curve ball. Maternal instincts kick in and mother cannot leave the baby in Kenya, either due to pure maternal instincts or in seeing the conditions in Kenya that her child would be raised in with a mostly absentee father over there. Thus she changes her mom’s plan and she takes the baby and birth certificate issued by the Mombassa Hospital to the American Embassy or consulate in Kenya and shows them the Kenyan Birth Certificate for her child and “explains” the baby was born unexpectedly in Kenya while there visiting her “husband’s” family. U.S. officials then stamp her passport as traveling with an infant child.

    Mother gets on plane carrying the child and flies back to Hawaii and appears at the airport arrival with the new baby in tow, much to the shock of her mother, the child’s U.S. grandmother. Baby easily is passed through U.S. entry officials due to embassy stamp on mother’s passport and the supporting Kenyan birth certificate showing a U.S. citizen is the mother.

    Child’s U.S. grandmother is still besides herself at this change in plans by the mother of the child. The child’s grandmother then knowing or learning from legal advisers how lax Hawaiian birth registration laws were in 1961, then cooks up a plan and scheme with the child’s mother, to lie to Hawaiian officials and swear and sign affidavits at the birth registry office that the child was born in Hawaii at home with no witnesses but them, in order to get the child U.S. citizenship (a highly desirable status) to make future travel and life easier on the family and new child. They did this lie and cover up simply to gain U.S. citizenship for the child a highly coveted status for any child, not knowing that this child might someday grow up and try to become the President and thus risk having their whole plans and lies exposed.

    Birth registration office then issues the announcements to the two newspapers, as was the offices custom at the time to send the papers lists of babies born, of the birth event which at its source was only based on the false sworn testimony of the mother. Thus the birth notices in the newspapers are not independent data, they all came from the same source, … false sworn statements from the mother and/or grandmother that the child was born in Hawaii.

    Thus under this narrative the birth records in the vaults in Hawaii may be simply sworn affidavits of the mother and grandmother saying Obama was born at home with no witnesses, all based on lies and fraud, which seems to be a common occurrence with Mr. O’s entire life.

    JMHO and a suggested narrative to explain events and facts as revealed thus far.

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

  4. Simple Interest says:
    June 17, 2009 at 1:55 pm
    earl June 15, 2009 at 8:41 pm:
    “Civil Rules have no presumption of innocence or guilt and no party enjoys that right because there is only a contraversy that exists and if the plaintiff meets certain requirements, even with the help of the defendant in most cases, the case proceeds.”

    Ya’ll keep trying to move the goal posts on our judicial system. In the case of Pres Obama’s eligibility, he is presumed eligible until you who accuse him prove otherwise. A defendant in any kind case, civil or criminal has no obligation to produce evidence to assist the plaintiff in proving or disproving his case. Without facts sufficient to form the basis of a valid lawsuit, no case proceeds. Without a true cause of action, some evidence that Obama is ineligible at the outset, no case against him will proceed. Speculation, supposition, and innuendo that there’s proof if the court would just help you discover it is not a sufficient basis for a valid lawsuit. If anyone had any proof that Obama is ineligible, it would have come out before the election, the electoral college, the certification of the vote in Congress and the inauguration. Your relief is no longer in the courts, it’s in the Congress.

  5. Phil says:
    June 18, 2009 at 8:44 am
    “freedom of speech”

    Actually, you have a right to your own opinion. Your first amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws that limit your freedom of speech. It doesn’t guarantee your right to say whatever you want anywhere to anyone. E.g. this blog, it’s yours, and although you are quite generous at posting viewpoints different from your own, you don’t owe anyone here the freedom of speech. I am always surprised at how many conservatives misunderstand what freedom of speech is.

  6. Phil says:
    June 16, 2009 at 9:51 pm
    “So-called “birthers” are trying to enforce, not change, the Constitution; it is not the so-called “birthers”‘ fault if President Obama happens to be essentially the second President seen as challenging the presidential eligibility clause.”

    You certainly are trying to ‘change’ the constitution and the justice system. You are insisting eligibility means 2 parents citizens – that’s not in our Constitution. You are trying to change our justice system by insisting Obama prove he’s eligible. That’s not how it works, and you know it, Orly, Apuzzo and Berg know it. The burden is on you folks to prove he’s not eligible. If you had enough proof to support a cause of action, you’d have had a case heard before the election. Now the election is over and Barack Obama is the President. And since you support the Constitution, you know the only way to remove a President is via impeachment and conviction by the Congress, not in the Courts system.

    1. earl,

      Phil says:
      June 16, 2009 at 9:51 pm
      “So-called “birthers” are trying to enforce, not change, the Constitution; it is not the so-called “birthers”‘ fault if President Obama happens to be essentially the second President seen as challenging the presidential eligibility clause.”

      You certainly are trying to ‘change’ the constitution and the justice system. You are insisting eligibility means 2 parents citizens – that’s not in our Constitution. You are trying to change our justice system by insisting Obama prove he’s eligible.

      I’m not sure where you come from, but here in America, we have this concept known as freedom of speech. Inherent within that right is the innate ability to possess an opinion. However, the ability to possess an opinion and actively profess said opinion is not synonymous with making any kind of change.

      Therefore, I completely fail to see the rationality that you’re trying to use RE: “insisting” [having an opinion] = “‘change’ the [C]onstitution”

      After all, to use this same illogic, I could make the reverse claim that people such as yourself are trying to “change” the Constitution by continually stymieing individuals such as myself from petitioning the Judiciary to render an opinion on this issue. Naturally, that charge fails on at least two counts.

      -Phil

  7. earl June 15, 2009 at 8:41 pm:

    Earl,

    You have not quite explained the difference between the criminal and civil cases. Your response is that the Defendant is presumed innocent in both criminal and civil matters and that’s simply not the case. Civil Rules are very different than Criminal Rules. Although you are right about the differing burdens, you are not quite right on the application. Civil Rules have no presumption of innocence or guilt and no party enjoys that right because there is only a contraversy that exists and if the plaintiff meets certain requirements, even with the help of the defendant in most cases, the case proceeds. With the current discussion, the Courts have deviated from their established practices and operations. Just to add, the Contraversy is that Obama is not eligible to be President and the Rulings have been that the only person who can challenge (standing) the eligibility issue is the very person(s) who stand to LOSE in the matter (the President, the Congress (whether Dem or GOP), the DOJ (which the President appoints), & (Yes, even SCOTUS which is established by the Constitution)—almost self governance, which is clearly a Constitutional Violation and deviation from Federalism. Everyone should be afraid of this type of renegade acts by the Courts. This has been unbelievable, where the same Courts that decide life or death & freedom or bondage will not stand for the same Document that allows them to render rulings and opinions in those instances. We all should be afraid and this is not about a party in power but about our heritage and legacy…..Good Discussion though!!!

  8. Phil says:
    June 16, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    “Have you, personally, spoken with any of the named individuals or can cite first-hand sources that have drawn the same conclusion that “[you know that] [t]hey know better?””

    My opinion of them is based on their cases. The cases they have filed are all based on trying to get a judge to turn the justice system backwards. I know they would never allow the same thing if they were defending a client against the same accusations.

    No court is going to address Obama’s eligibility because none of them can provide the relief you all are seeking. The only body that can do that is the US Congress. The CA judge was kind enough to spell that out for you.

    1. earl,

      My opinion of them is based on their cases. The cases they have filed are all based on trying to get a judge to turn the justice system backwards. I know they would never allow the same thing if they were defending a client against the same accusations.

      OK. The truth of the matter is you really don’t know what they think, because — to correctly answer my question — you have not directly spoken with them nor had direct citations from them upon which you can reasonably make your claim.

      And, really, you contradict yourself from the start by saying that “[m]y opinion is based on their cases.” If this is true, then your opinion is that they would do what they did, because you don’t know any better with any more confidence than you have at the moment to draw any other conclusion.

      In other words, while you claim that they would never perform the inverse of their present actions, the truth of the matter is that you have no way of knowing that, based on actions already executed.

      Furthermore, it is your opinion that they are “trying to get a judge to turn the justice system backwards,” simply based on the fact that you presume that all so-called “birthers” are trying to change the Constitution, which, of course, is a faulty premise from the start. So-called “birthers” are trying to enforce, not change, the Constitution; it is not the so-called “birthers”‘ fault if President Obama happens to be essentially the second President seen as challenging the presidential eligibility clause.

      -Phil

  9. KJ says:
    June 16, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    “I am still disappointed that Mr. Obama has not been forthcoming with the requested information and believe that he has something to hide that should have been revealed to the public. ”

    Well, the thing is he tried. He had his COLB scanned and put online and people called it a forgery. Then people started suing him. If someone sued you and accused you of not being who you say you are, your attorney would not allow anyone to try to intimidate you into accepting the burden of proving your innocence or identity. If he did, you should fire him. The beauty of our court system is that once someone accuses you in a suit or criminal complaint, it’s presumed you are innocent, or you are who you purport to be, until your accuser proves otherwise. You’re protected by the courts from being railroaded with no true cause of action. You don’t want that protection to be taken away from Obama, because that would change our justice system, and you yourself might need that protection someday. You don’t ever want to be in the position of someone saying ” Judge we know KJ is a XXXX, we just know it, we don’t have the proof to show you right now, but if you just let us look through all of KJ’s records, we are pretty darn sure there’s something there somewhere.” Thankfully, no one judge would accept that and do that to you.

  10. Earl,

    Spin, spin, spin. You know not of what you speak or don’t know the latest news in the latest case. The case against Congress and Obama filed by Atty Apuzzo of Kerchner v Obama & Congress is being taken very seriously. This is what the federal Magistrate Judge wrote just last week in his latest Order from the court regarding Atty Apuzzo’s case: “The Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises significant issues ….” Read the rest below. You can make up your version of the seriousness of this issue but this federal Magistrate Judge does not agree with you:

    Snipped from Atty Apuzzo’s blog:
    ——————————————–
    On page two the Judge writes, “In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United States.” Then on page four the Judge writes, “Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests.” The Judge points out that the Department of Justice still has not decided who is going to represent whom for the seven defendants in the case. Later he then writes, “The Court is confident that after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that the case will proceed expeditiously.” The Judge of course noted that we opposed the extension. And previously on page two, the Judge noted, “The Court has also received numerous letters from non-parties opposing Defendants’ motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25].” The order was written and signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider who serves at the:

    United States Courthouse
    400 Cooper Street
    Camden NJ 08102-1570
    ——————————————-

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/16253400/

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    So you can spin, spin, spin, spin and obfuscate all you want. But it is only a matter of time now and the truth and the Constitution will win and Obama will be out of the office he now usurps.

    RJ

  11. earl says:

    KJ says:
    June 15, 2009 at 2:27 pm
    “Also in a civil suit, (correct me if I am wrong) the burden of proof falls on the defendant,and there is no presumption of innocence.”

    You are Completely Wrong. In our justice system, criminal or civil, the burden of proof is always, always, always on the accuser and the defendant is always, always, always presumed innocent until proven guilty. The difference between civil and criminal cases is that in criminal cases guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while in civil cases the requirement is guilt by a preponderance of the evidence. In either case, a defendant has no obligation to present evidence that proves his innocence.

    I was thinking of the OJ trials and something that I had heard. The criminal trial jury did not convict him and the Goldmans received a settlement from their civil suit. That would fit with beyond a reason doubt and preponderance of evidence. Thank you.

    I was also thinking of the SLAM suits to shut people up.

    I am still disappointed that Mr. Obama has not been forthcoming with the requested information and believe that he has something to hide that should have been revealed to the public. The MSM has admitted their failure to investigate him. I am worried about the precedent that he is openly setting with (two?) foreign national father(s) and disappointed that the Supreme Court has not clarified the definition of nbc.

    It will be sad day if the voter is ultimately held responsible for vetting the Candidates without the assistance of the media or the government and without being able to force relevant information out in a court of law. If this situation doesn’t bite us this time, it will in the future for our descendants if nothing is changed.

    Put the voter in a windowless box with a single tiny light bulb and tell him that there is no sun. Give him blank paper and tell him that that is the Constitution. Unfortunately there are some people who would believe it.

  12. ramjet767 says:
    June 15, 2009 at 11:34 pm
    Sorry Earl. The question is simply not guilt or innocence.

    Unfortunately, ramjet, you are wrong and confused. When someone is accused of something, anything, they are presumed innocent always. These cases aren’t about rules of law, they accuse Pres Obama of being ineligible to be President. In all these cases, Pres Obama is absolutely assumed to be eligible until those accusing him prove otherwise. That is how our legal system ALWAYS works. An accuser must have a cause of action, some reasonable proof, that what they claim is true for any action to proceed. That is why no court is going to allow these suits to proceed because they are all based on the premise that “we’ll be able to prove our case once the court allows us to discover the proof” or when the court “makes Obama prove he’s eligible.” That’s never going to happen. What is discouraging is that Apuzzo, Orly, Berg know it and yet pursue an attempt to have the justice system turned backwards on Pres Obama. They know better. If they were defending a client in just such a situation, they would never allow done to their client what they are attempting to do to Pres Obama. They are playing games and counting on people like you not understanding our justice system well enough to see it.

    1. earl,

      What is discouraging is that Apuzzo, Orly, Berg know it and yet pursue an attempt to have the justice system turned backwards on Pres Obama. They know better. If they were defending a client in just such a situation, they would never allow done to their client what they are attempting to do to Pres Obama. They are playing games and counting on people like you not understanding our justice system well enough to see it.

      Have you, personally, spoken with any of the named individuals or can cite first-hand sources that have drawn the same conclusion that “[you know that] [t]hey know better?”

      Then how do you know?

      You don’t; your opinion is of no better or worse value than mine or anyone else’s. Further, it needs to be understood that until the Judiciary in this country renders an official opinion on the matter, the issue will remain unresolved.

      -Phil

  13. Sorry Earl. The question is simply not guilt or innocence. It is qbout eligibility under the Constitution and the rule of law. Is Obama eligible under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief? Did Congress do its duty under the 20th Amendment? Is Obama a natural born citizen? The cases are asking the court to define that legal term of art to Article II constitutional standards and then apply it to Obama’s eligibility question. And the Birth Certificate issue is only one part of the historical, constitutional meaning of the legal term of art, natural born citizen. As part of conclusively proving he is eligible he will have to produce a certified paper copy of his long form birth certificate and supporting documentation in his file in Hawaii to back up the computer image on the internet he asks everyone to believe. See this website for more details and essays on the subject of natural born citizenship:

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    As to the attorneys and their cases, did you read the Prayer for Relief in Atty Apuzzo’s lawsuit starting on page 69. If not you should read it to get a better idea of the goals of the lawsuit as you appear to be confused.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

    RJ

  14. KJ says:
    June 15, 2009 at 2:27 pm
    “Also in a civil suit, (correct me if I am wrong) the burden of proof falls on the defendant,and there is no presumption of innocence.”

    You are Completely Wrong. In our justice system, criminal or civil, the burden of proof is always, always, always on the accuser and the defendant is always, always, always presumed innocent until proven guilty. The difference between civil and criminal cases is that in criminal cases guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while in civil cases the requirement is guilt by a preponderance of the evidence. In either case, a defendant has no obligation to present evidence that proves his innocence.

    Now that you know this, do you understand why cries for Obama to “just show the thing” are disingenuous and an attempt to turn our justice system backwards? If it were you that was accused and people were calling for you to “just prove you’re innocent”, I can assure you, the judge would never allow it and your counsel would be jumping on the table. For you as a regular person to make this mistake is one thing, for attorneys like Orly, Berg, Apuzzo et al to try to shift the burden of proof onto Pres Obama is outrageous. They know better.

  15. ramjet767 says:
    June 13, 2009 at 12:34 am
    Earle

    “A digital image posted on the internet is not seeing an actual certified copy of an original document ”

    You can look at pictures of Pres Obama’s certified COLB. You saw no pictures or scans of McCain’s birth certificate. You are willing to accept the word of a reporter about McCain as “documentation” that McCain is a natural born citizen even though the birth certificate he showed the reporter says he was born in Panama. But you are unwilling to accept the word of the President of the United States, the pictures of his certified COLB, the birth announcements, the word of the health Dept of the State of Hawaii and the verification by the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, that Pres Obama was born in Honolulu. There is much more documentation available about the circumstances of Pres Obama’s birth than McCain’s. And yet you continue to question him. Name the Presidents for whom you have personally seen an original birth certificate.

  16. Mario stated in a radio interview that the 5th Amendment only applies to verbal testimony in criminal cases and does not apply to verbal or document evidence in civil cases. He also seems optimistic about his case being heard. His case will have a history and the case is ripe. He feels that at least one of his plaintiffs will have standing. Dismissal by any court leads to appeal and hearing in any court leads to discovery.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/06/10/The-Citizens-Grand-Jury

  17. Some devil’s advocate wrote, “Congress has sovereign immunity.”

    A lawsuit against the United States in federal court does not invoke or imply concerns of sovereignty. Such broad exceptions have been carved out of federal sovereign immunity that, “Congress, on behalf of the United States, has surrendered any comparable right not to be a litigant in its own courts.” (Pullman Construction, 23 F.3d at 1169). Federal sovereign immunity now serves merely to channel litigation into the appropriate avenue for redress.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    That is the First Amendment, devil’s advocate. Perhaps you have heard of it.

  18. Daily K0s published the original forgery on June 12, 2008. As of today, June 13, 2009, the Obama administration has stalled the process of discovery of a genuine, unaltered, long-form, typewritten Hawaii CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, with three signatures and the hospital or street address of the birth . . .

    for A YEAR AND A DAY.

    The Sixth Amendment begins, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” Is that right only for criminals? Does it not apply to the aggrieved party as well?

    An impostor, his criminal minions, and accomplices in long black robes have subverted and thwarted both the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. criminal justice system. This is not just fraud. This is not just Grand Theft America. This usurpation, with many quislings in high places aiding and abetting the crime, is treason against the United States.

  19. Sharon 2 says:
    June 10, 2009 at 9:06 pm
    ““A senior official of the McCain campaign showed a reporter a copy of the senator’s birth certificate issued by Canal Zone health authorities, recording his birth in the Coco Solo ‘family hospital.’”

    Then you are agree McCain didn’t show any more “documentation” than Obama. You accept that a reporter says he saw a copy of McCain’s birth certificate as proof of natural born citizenship. And you don’t accept it for Obama, even though you have seen a scan and pictures of Obama’s. Considering that the reporter reported McCain’s BC shows he was born in Panama, and the scan and pictures of Obama’s shows he was born in Hawaii, why do you accept what a reporter says about McCain’s as “documentation” and not what you have seen with your own eyes about Obama’s?

  20. bob strauss says:
    June 10, 2009 at 9:06 pm
    “Hey earl, are you calling Obama’s grandmother a liar? She says, she was present, at Barry’s birth, in Kenya.”

    She didn’t say that.

  21. Jacqlyn Smith says:

    Your words are even more reason why the IMPOSTER needs to verify his birth and upbringing with legal documents….

    Obama already proved that he is a natural born citizen, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. If you think he needs to better document his upbringing, don’t vote for him.

    you are trying to lead people astray from the TRUTH!!!!

    Jacqlyn, I’m still waiting for you to cite the Supreme Court cases on which you based your claim:

    There is a legal difference between “U.S. Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” as you know. The Supreme Court has ruled on this in prior cases where the “President Elect” had been born in a U.S. territory. [ http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5229 ]

    Maybe you should hold off on such rants as, “you are trying to lead people astray from the TRUTH!!!!” while your claim there stands as fabrication.

  22. Phil,

    Fortunately, this Judge doesn’t appear to be as biased as Judge Robertson in Hollister v. Soetoro, where the Judge went on record to suggest that Twittering a candidate’s eligibility was enough to substantiate who Mr. Obama is.

    No Phil, that’s not what Judge Robertson wrote. He listed twitter as one of several ways “America’s vigilant citizenry” examined the issue. The whole thing is Internet fringe theory, so the proper place to debunk it is also the Internet. In court, the case is “frivolous” and “foolish”, as the judge put it.

    The answers you need are in front of you. The judge can tell you how things are, but he cannot make you take the lesson. Instead of playing judge of the judge, I suggest taking the clue:

    “This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/hollister-soetoromemorandum.pdf

  23. “As a constitutional scholar, Barack Obama knows he is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President. Otherwise he would have made sure that a special measure was passed clarifying his status as well.
    (Earl)

    This is what everybody knows:

    “The bad news is that the nonbinding Senate resolution passed Wednesday night is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks.

    Article II of the Constitution states that “no person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of president.” The problem is that the Founding Fathers never defined exactly what they meant by “natural born citizen,” and the matter has never been fully tested in court.”

    The bad news is that the nonbinding Senate resolution passed Wednesday night is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html

  24. “. By the way, you are wrong about McCain. McCain never “showed” his “documentation” (Earl)

    I would expect that someone who truly is a historian will correct Earl… oh nevermind.

    “A senior official of the McCain campaign showed a reporter a copy of the senator’s birth certificate issued by Canal Zone health authorities, recording his birth in the Coco Solo ‘family hospital.'”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html

  25. YOU are paying for Obama and Company’s criminal defense in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit….SUCKER.

    The lawyer for USA and Obama, Elizabeth A. Pascal, who works in the office of Ralph J. Marra, Acting United States Attorney, is now asking the Court a second time through her motion for more time to answer for the defendants.

    Initially, Ms. Pascal only represented the USA and Obama, whose answers or motions were initially due on April 20, 2009. Ms. Pascal requested and obtained an extension to file her responses to May 5, 2009.

    Now Ms. Pascal states in her declaration that former Vice President Cheney, the House of Representatives, and Speaker Pelosi have asked that the Department of Justice represent them in the action. She adds that the Justice Department is also deciding which Congressional defendants (meaning Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) it will represent. Pending the Justice Department making that decision, she is moving the Court for an order allowing all the Congressional defendants more time to answer or otherwise move. She includes in her request additional time for the USA and Obama to answer, whose answers are now due on May 5, 2009.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/06/update-on-kerchner-et-als-v-obama-et.html

  26. brygenon says:
    June 9, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    NewEnglandPatriot says:

    However, it is good that the case hasn’t been thrown out. I think it is a very solid case,

    Looks a lot like cases birthers have already lost, with added bits of non-starter sprinkled in, such as:

    as it goes after Congress and Obama only indirectly.

    Congress has sovereign immunity.

    After all, many judges have stated after refusing to hear the cases brought before them that ONLY Congress is authorized to determine whether or not a person meets the eligiblity criteria for president and vice president. So let’s see why they refused to do that in this instance!

    When a court says that only Congress has the required authority, it means your recourse is to Congress, not the courts.

    ******************************************************************************

    Your words are even more reason why the IMPOSTER needs to verify his birth and upbringing with legal documents….you are trying to lead people astray from the TRUTH!!!!

  27. Considering that Obama taught Constitutional Law, it would be quite fair to assume he has a better than good knowledge of the Constitution. By the way, you are wrong about McCain. McCain never “showed” his “documentation”. Instead, the Senate passed a special measure declaring John McCain a natural born citizen. The bill was co-sponsored by the Junior Senator from Illinois, fellow by the name of Barack Obama. As a constitutional scholar, Barack Obama knows he is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President. Otherwise he would have made sure that a special measure was passed clarifying his status as well. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. He knows it. So does the Electoral College, the entire Congress, the DNC, the RNC, the 50 states, DC, 6 territories, the FEC, the FBI, CIA, the Depts of State and Homeland Security. His proof is that he has a signed, stamped, dated Certificate of Live Birth says he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Nothing else matters. Not his parents or their status, not his school grades, his financial status, whether Soetoro adopted him, whether his father was a British Subject. The only thing that matters is where he was born. And he has proven that to the satisfaction of anyone who matters under the 12th amendment. You have yet to prove otherwise.

  28. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/06/activity-in-kerchner-v-obama-congress.html

    Tuesday, June 9, 2009
    Activity in Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case – 2nd Extension of time granted to Defendants
    Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit – The motion by the defendants for the second extension in time to answer, move, or otherwise respond was granted. Their new deadline is June 29, 2009. You can read the full order at the link below. When you read the order you will see that the court addressed this second request for an extension in great detail in his five page order. On page two the Judge writes, “In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United States.” Then on page four the Judge writes, “Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests.” The Judge points out that the Department of Justice still has not decided who is going to represent whom for the seven defendants in the case. Later he then writes, “The Court is confident that after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that the case will proceed expeditiously.” The Judge of course noted that we opposed the extension. And previously on page two, the Judge noted, “The Court has also received numerous letters from non-parties opposing Defendants’ motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25].” The order was written and signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider who serves at the:

    United States Courthouse
    400 Cooper Street
    Camden NJ 08102-1570

    I will comment in more detail later.

    Link to a copy of the filed court document for this latest activity: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16253400/

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    185 Gatzmer Avenue
    Jamesburg NJ 08831
    Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com

  29. Phil,

    In general the Government has to respond quickly to cases. Dick Cheney request for DOJ council is appropriate, and time consuming. Be that as it may, the plantiff is harmed by delay, here I disagree with the judge.

    We will see when this actually, if ever, gets to discovery. Discovery of documents and records, especially Obama’s, would answer the questions that are dividing America. Moreover, IF Obama and the Democrats have defrauded the public, it should be exposed as timely as possible.

    Even the Obots have admitted what is important here is the truth, and some kind of judicial decision as to what is NBC for the purposes of POTUS. Discovery of Obama’s records will settle most of the issues surrounding his origins, citizenship, and eligibility. However, I would still hope that the SCOTUS would define NBC for POTUS so future conflicts could be avoided.

    1. Pete,

      However, I would still hope that the SCOTUS would define NBC for POTUS so future conflicts could be avoided.

      Legally, you are correct. However, from a political perspective, assuming that Mr. Obama is well-versed on the Constitution, and with legitimate questions regarding his eligibility, why would he not act like, say, Sen. McCain, and simply show his background documentation? Why would he hide things from people? What is he trying to accomplish and subsequently get the government more involved in its citizens’ lives more in the past 120+ days than what the American left could do in several decades?

      Naturally, these are rhetorical questions.

      -Phil

    1. Civis naturaliter natus,

      The constant requests for extensions is an implicit admission of the merit of at least some claims of the plaintiffs.

      With caveats, I could agree with this sentiment. After all, if this was merely about eligibility (as all other lawsuits have been, exclusively), it would have been very easy for the Defendants to simply move to dismiss the suit (in fact, every other eligibility lawsuit currently known, to date, has had this happen immediately after the Plaintiffs filed their petition).

      However, as I’ve mentioned, this particular suit is about a few more issues beyond eligibility. For example:

      Many in the opposition claim that the Joint Session of Congress — the one that certifies Electoral College votes — is where a candidate’s eligibility is supposed to be questioned. Of course, a key unspoken qualifier is whether or not this session is meant to be the sole or only time and place that a candidate’s eligibility could be formally questioned. I doubt that it is exclusively, as there are many steps and places prior to the Joint Session whereby a Secretary of State, an Elector, another candidate, etc. could petition against another candidate.

      Getting back to the point… let’s say it is true (even though there is no absolute controlling legal authority that claims this, where even California has two cases on the books about this issue that come to two radically different conclusions) that Congress is the only real authority to question a candidate’s eligibility. They failed to even allow this to occur, as anyone can watch the 2008 Joint Session and clearly see that there were absolutely no calls for objections as the Electoral Votes were being certified (or even before or after).

      Fortunately, this Judge doesn’t appear to be as biased as Judge Robertson in Hollister v. Soetoro, where the Judge went on record to suggest that Twittering a candidate’s eligibility was enough to substantiate who Mr. Obama is. After all, if the premise is true that “only” Congress can verify eligibility, what does Twitter — or any other facility at the public’s disposal — have to do with any eligibility substantiation? One cannot have it both ways based on these assumptions.

      -Phil

  30. NewEnglandPatriot says:

    However, it is good that the case hasn’t been thrown out. I think it is a very solid case,

    Looks a lot like cases birthers have already lost, with added bits of non-starter sprinkled in, such as:

    as it goes after Congress and Obama only indirectly.

    Congress has sovereign immunity.

    After all, many judges have stated after refusing to hear the cases brought before them that ONLY Congress is authorized to determine whether or not a person meets the eligiblity criteria for president and vice president. So let’s see why they refused to do that in this instance!

    When a court says that only Congress has the required authority, it means your recourse is to Congress, not the courts.

  31. I think members of Congress are going to ask for representation piecemeal so that Ms. Pascal and others can continue to ask for extensions for as long as they possibly can. I think they’ve had plenty of time to get their case together.

    However, it is good that the case hasn’t been thrown out. I think it is a very solid case, as it goes after Congress and Obama only indirectly. After all, many judges have stated after refusing to hear the cases brought before them that ONLY Congress is authorized to determine whether or not a person meets the eligiblity criteria for president and vice president. So let’s see why they refused to do that in this instance!

Leave a Reply