"Don’t suppress the Spirit, and don’t stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good. Throw out anything tainted with evil."
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (The Message)

Kerchner v. Obama: Certain Public Commentary To Be Stricken From Docket

Update: Attorney Mario Apuzzo has linked to the following document regarding “non-conforming” documents via his web site:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 28 & 29 Judge’s Ltr Abt Ltrs Written by People Abt Case 20090629

Update: It appears that WorldNetDaily’s recent article concerning public comment on this case was, at the very least, misleading. The following is a full explanation by a concerned citizen who had recently heard Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner on The Chalice Show:

Family Security Matters and other bloggers:

Hello. I’m writing you all because of various post(s) on your websites pertaining to a letter writing campaign to a judge in the Kerchner v. Obama case.

There has been reporting about letters being sent to the judge and added to the court record; see http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3582/pub_detail.asp and http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6404 for two examples.

However, some points need to be clarified so that people get this right and don’t waste their time by making critical errors. Kerchner and his attorney (Mario Apuzzo) were on a radio show tonight (June 28th) at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/06/29/The-Chalice-Show and discussed this letter writing campaign.

First of all, the judge did not solicit these letters; people sent them on their own initiative and they were added to the record. We don’t actually know why the judge added them, or if any will be added in the future (they might be, they might not; we don’t know for sure). In fact public letters being added like this is a very rare thing. Typically if an outsider wants to comment on a case, it has to be done via an amicus curiae brief. But for some reason, these letters were added to the record, and Kerchner is now encouraging people to send more letters. We don’t know if they will be added to the record or not, but they may.

Second, June 29th is NOT the letter deadline. There is no official letter deadline. June 29th was just the due date for the government’s response; they responded last week by filing a motion to dismiss, so June 29th is now out of the picture. The court will rule on the government’s motion to dismiss on July 20th, so people definitely need to get their letters in before then, and certainly they should do so as soon as possible.

Third, messages sent via fax may not be accepted. They might, but they might not. http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/FAQS.html#faxpleadings states that procedure requires original documents, so sending letters via USPS or FedEx is far more reliable if people actually want their letters to possibly be added to the record.

Fourth, letters need to be addressed not only to Judge Joel Schneider, but also to Judge Jerome B. Simandle. Judge Schneider is the referring magistrate judge; he is outranked by the presiding district court judge, Judge Simandle. Any letters should be addressed to BOTH judges. A good form is this:

The Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle, presiding
The Honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, referring
Mitchell H. Cohen Building & U.S. Courthouse
4th & Cooper Streets, Room 1050
Camden, NJ 08101

That address comes from the official court website at http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/dir/JudgeListCamden.html

People also need to remember when writing their letters that this has to do with the Constitution and nothing else. If the judges gets letters saying things like “You have to stop Obama or else we will be destroyed by socialism,” it can only cause damage to this case. The courts are not a political branch, nor should they be. The courts are there to apply the law, not dabble in politics. The purpose of this letter campaign should be to highlight the significant Constitutional matters at hand and urge the judges to hear the case on Constitutional grounds and render fair and impartial judgment accordingly.

As an independent blogger, I also do my best to get things as correctly as possible before posting; that sometimes means that incomplete information gets posted and concerned citizens — from both sides — let me know what they think. Further, while I overall respect the efforts by WorldNetDaily and similar organizations, the bottom line to me is that if they get something wrong, then they get something wrong, and they need to change when appropriate.

Mr. Apuzzo also mentioned that the Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss:

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit was received today and is posted on the PACER system as Document 27. A copy of the motion and the supporting brief from the defendants’ attorney is available in the right frame of this blog. After months of stalling, this was the next expected tactic and has been the typical tactic used by Obama when he was just a candidate. But when he became the President Elect, and then was sworn in as the President, his position changed from being a mere candidate exerting his 1st Amendment political right to run, to becoming the President Elect and thus having to prove he is eligible under Article II of our Constitution. And the Congress failed us all by not vetting Obama as was their duty. Knowing their tactics, it was expected that they would try to move for a dismissal in this case too and we have been preparing for it. The motion return date is July 20, 2009. We of course will file a document opposing their dismissal motion prior to that date.

The following is the actual Motion:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 27-1 & 27-2 Defendants Motion & Brief to Dismiss

It is definitely worth a read. Basically, the Defense moves according to the following:

  • The Court does not have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to this case;
  • The Plaintiffs have no standing to bring this case;
  • Federal officials have immunity against cases such as this;
  • The Second Amended Complaint should be stricken because, essentially, it’s too long (and, hence, an unreasonable burden is placed on the Defendants to give an answer) and wasn’t filed properly

I’ll be looking forward to seeing how Mr. Apuzzo responds to the above.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

If you liked this post, subscribe to my RSS feed!

232 Responses to “Kerchner v. Obama: Certain Public Commentary To Be Stricken From Docket

  • 1
    Poppet
    June 27th, 2009 04:39

    Dear Judge Schneider,
    This letter is to request that you consider
    to hear the “KERCHNER vs Obama case #09-0253 (JBS).

    I have been following the “eligibility” issue since August 08.
    There is considerable doubt and lack of legal record’s to prove that
    Obama meet’s Article II, section I, clause of Our Constitution.

    Amongst many other detail’s, I have not even been able to find
    information if Obama’s mother lived in Hawaii for one year prior to
    his birth on August 04, 1961, which is a requirement to file for a
    certification of live birth under Hawaii Statutes. All I could find is that
    she started school there in Nov. 1960. She would have to have been
    there prior to August 04,1960 “without leaving”, for one year to meet the requirement OF RESIDENCY.

    Usually, when birth record’s are “sealed” it pertain’s to an ADOPTION.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020_0005.htm in part:
    (b) After preparation of the new certificate of birth in the new name of the adopted person, the department of health shall SEAL and file the certified copy of the adoptive
    decree, the investigatory report and recommendation of the director of human services if any, the report constituting the original certificate of birth, and the request for a new certificate of birth. The SEALED documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record…..

    READ ALL STATUTES click prev/next
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0021.htm

    Regardless of the BC, Obama’s father was never a
    u.s. citizen and could never have been “natural born”. His mother was to young to pass citizenship to him.
    Obama was born a British subject of Kenya.

    These are very interesting statutes cited at 8 USC 1481.
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
    However take a look at (2382 through 2391) click previous or next http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002382—-000-.html also, 18 U.S.C. 4 imposes a legal obligation to report all Federal Felonies to an officer in the Judicial, Civil or Military authorities of the United States (Federal Government):

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html

    (Failure to do so is another Federal Felony!)
    (read’s as follow’s)
    Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    These are just a few that Obama/? and his supporter’s should be charged with.

    He should be charged with fraud and impersonation as an average
    person breaking the law in any jurisdiction.

    This should be a simple matter for Barack Obama to show his true credential’s, including birth certificate, passport, college, service and medical record’s. They should be forensic inspected.

    The “Public” has been requesting this for many month’s and would like to get some real answer’s.
    Dan Smith, NY

  • 2
    Greg Goss
    June 27th, 2009 09:56

    There are many who believe the motion to dismiss will be granted. However I would ask why the judge would allow comments and make the statements that he has knowing he would more than likely be presented with a motion to dismiss.

  • 3
    NewEnglandPatriot
    June 27th, 2009 10:15

    I have read the entire response by the defendants’ attorneys. I am not a lawyer, and they do make some good arguments. However, I found their response to Dick Cheney’s being named as a defendant quite vacuous. They indicated that the suit doesn’t state specifically what Cheney did to violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. I have read Attorney Apuzzo’s filing, and it definitely DOES state specifically what Cheney failed to do: He did not ask the question, “Are there any dissenters?” as is required by the Constitution. He never even attempted to utter those words as Pelosi & Company burst into raucous laughter and clapping at the thought of their Criminal-in-Chief being “elected” by the Electoral College.

    In that regard, the U.S. attorneys providing the response did a poor job. Cheney failed to follow constitutional procedure as all other presidents of the senate have had to do since the founding of this country. I think that is very specific and it deprived everyone of constitutional rights.

    Marra and Pascal are saying that the injury cannot be generalized. I believe that Apuzzo’s argument is that his plaintiffs all wrote letters to their congressmen before the electoral vote count, advising them of the probably ineligibility of Obama and urging them to do something about it on January 8. They failed to do so. Therefore, it seems to me that the plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutional rights by proper procedure having been ignored.

    Obama’s attorneys are so arrogant it makes me sick. Why would they NOT want to assure the American people that Obama is qualified to serve? They quote the Constitution all over the place, but when it comes to following it themselves, they feel they’re immune.

    And the point about Pelosi not being culpable is hogwash. She signed the form which confirmed Obama & Biden as the Democrat nominees. That meant that she tacitly agreed that they were both constitutionally qualified, yet she either didn’t know for sure or never checked. She was therefore signing her name to something of which she had no knowledge but should have. Same as all the Secretaries of State, apparently.

    Poor US attorneys…having too much to read through and respond to! Poor babies!

  • 4
    HistorianDude
    June 27th, 2009 10:28

    Of course, Apuzzo is not being truthful in his account.

    He states that the judge’s “ruling described the issue as a serious constitutional question.” Such a description can be found nowhere in the ruling.

    The closest would be this statement, “Plaintiff’s Complain raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests.”

    There is no mention of any “constitution question” at all, let alone a serious one. As such it is a patent falsehood to assert the judge has described it so.

    For those interested, the judges actual ruling can be found here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/16253400/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-26-Order-Granting-Defendants-Additional-Time-to-Jun-29-2009

  • 5
    St. Lucie
    June 27th, 2009 10:31

    According to World Net Daily, Barack Obama’s official Kenyan Birth Certificate is for sale on eBay. Starting bid is $1000 with a “Buy it Now” option of $1 million. There is one bidder as of 10:25am 5-28-09. 10:28am 6 bids. http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/colmado_naranja

  • 6
    St. Lucie
    June 27th, 2009 10:34

    eBay auction Obama’s Kenyan Birth Cert. description begins with:

    This is auction is for a certified copy of President Barack Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate.

    President Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th 1961.

  • 7
    HistorianDude
    June 27th, 2009 10:38

    A question:

    Judge Joel Schneider is accepting letters in the Kerchner vs. Obama birth certificate case and will include them in the file if received by Monday, June 29th.

    Can anybody point to any statement by the judge that he is “accepting letters” at all? Let alone where he set a deadline?

    The letters that have shown up on Pacer (almost all of them identically worded form letters signed in suspiciously similar handwriting) do not indicate any openness to such letters by the judge, who is probably not even aware of them. Postings to Pacer are made by clerks, not judges.

  • 8
    Manchurian Messiah
    June 27th, 2009 10:55

    Welcome back, Phil.

    The Usurper has not yet been cast aside.

    Let’s hope he “gets Right” and never takes a dip in the lake of fire.

  • 9
    Igor Marxomarxovich
    June 27th, 2009 11:02

    Old Russian saying…You can tell same lie 1000 time(Ms. Pelosi) but not change truth!

    Difference between USSR Communist media and USA “mainstream media”

    In Russia government make media say what they want – even if lie.
    In USA “mainstream media” try make government what they want – even if lie..
    …..eventually they become same thing?!

    I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at http://www.igormaro.org

  • 10
    observer
    June 27th, 2009 11:06

    Seen this yet?:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102271

    Obama’s “certified Kenyan BC” shows up on eBAY!

    At least it’s an interesting read about the seller and the story behind this.

    Bidding begins at $1000. Immediate delivery for $1,000,000.!

  • 11
    Mike
    June 27th, 2009 11:45

    According to Apuzzo the court has put the letters on “Pacer”

    Apuzzo told WND that while the judge recently granted the government extra time to line up defense counsel for the named defendants, his ruling described the issue as a serious constitutional question.

    “Plaintiffs’ complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in this case is not simple and straightforward,” the judge said.

    But as soon as attorneys are lined up, “the case will proceed expeditiously,” he said.

    The case has attracted numerous public comments directed at and delivered to the judge, who has started adding them to the case file, Apuzzo noted.

    “It’s unbelievable,” he said. “The court put the letters on Pacer.”

    Pacer is a fee-based court website through which interested parties can research cases and their documentation.

    “This is really strange,” said the attorney, noting that judges typically do not accept or even acknowledge public commentary on cases that are pending before them.

    “The point is the letters are there in the docket,” he said.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102156

    pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/

  • 12
    Pete
    June 27th, 2009 12:28

    Phil,

    Faxed my letter to the above number provided, no ‘recieved fax’.

    Hon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider
    U.S. District Court
    401 Market Street
    Camden, NJ 08102-1568
    FAX 856-757-5370

    Dear Hon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider;

    I am but a single voter, a single voice, requesting that our government provide the services it was intended to do so by the Constitution. I am not an attorney nor eloquent in prose. This single citizen, humbly requests, that the court consider the gravity of the potential crisis that has befallen this Constitutional republic.

    There comes a time, when government has become intrusive into our daily lives, that taxation cannot be tolerated without representation of the Constitution. The Constitution is the contract by which the Union persists. The representative branch and elective branch cannot, either by neglect or deliberation, deny basic protocols and requirements for any high office.

    The interpretation of the original Constitutional requirement for POTUS, as set out by article II, must be adhered to. Those entrusted with enforcing these requirements must be held accountable. Failure to ensure provision of these matters, will eventually lead to bloodshed and fragmentation of the Union. My personal beliefs of the current eligibility of President of the United States (POTUS), are not of consequence. A subsequent decision and opinion concerning Kerchner vs Obama and Congress 09-253 provides assurances that are Judicial branch of government is diligent, and Constitution is vibrant. This humble citizen asks not for favorable verdict, but asks for diligent judicial branch. The truth, no matter where it leads, will ensure a prosperous future for the United States for my children and yours.

    Pursuit of the truth and protection of the Constitution is your duty. Your honor, I do not envy your position, there are powerful forces at work here. The majority of officials would find a simple way not address these questions. Hearing this case would certainly grant discovery, and then you rendering an opinion on these issues. Refusing the case based upon standing or jurisdiction would likely protect you, your career, and your family. The concept of using standing to deny citizens access to accountability in our government, would likely be met with disdain by likes of Thomas Jefferson. Your honor will have to decide if the judicial branch of government has jurisdiction in interpreting issues concerning the Constitutional requirements as it pertains to elected officials.

    Sincerely,

    Pete

  • 13
    Skipford
    June 27th, 2009 13:08

    I can see the judge now…

    “You want more time defense? Ok fine. But we’re gonna do this my way…”

  • 14
    ConstitutionSupporter
    June 27th, 2009 13:52

    Phil,
    I have been following this whole issue for some time, and see
    where there is a supposed copy of a Kenyan birth certificate from
    the hospital that Obama reportedly could have been born at in
    Kenya. Why don’t we check into this more closely? Or possibly take up
    a collection from donations to buy this off ebay. TheSteadyDrip has
    some info on this, as has WND, and this could possibly be authentic. Has anyone
    thought of doing what this seller says he did? Just go to the Kenyan
    hospital and buy a certified copy from the hospital? Maybe it is
    something everyone else overlooked…but no matter, if everyone who
    is concerned about this issue chipped in 5-10 bucks, if it turned out
    to be fake, no big deal…but if authentic, 5-10 bucks could save US
    citizens trillions.

  • 15
    speedy
    June 27th, 2009 14:34

    That is a bunch of crap that these people use for excuses. Anyone in this country has standing and anywhere has jurisdiction. Since when are federal officials immune? Also, since when are usurpers immune? He is not eligible and he should stop hiding and get this matter settled once and for all. I sure hope the judge moves forward and denies the dismissal. I really think that Apuzzo should get a jury so that it would be more difficult for dismissal without looking at the merits. This dismissal stuff is getting old and standing stuff is getting old as well. I really would like to see BO removed once and for all. Also, the US attorney they have was probably put in by the usurper. Bummer that Jeffrey Taylor resigned.

  • 16
    speedy
    June 27th, 2009 15:06

    WND has an article about a man in Kenya who found BO’s birth certificate at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombassa and is selling it on Ebay. Apparently, it is common knowledge in Kenya that he was born in Kenya and they are proud of it and can’t understand why Americans don’t want to believe it.

  • 17
    Nick
    June 27th, 2009 19:34

    I keep seeing this June 29th deadline date for letters but no reliable source for it. June 29th was the deadline for the defense to respond (which they now already have). I didn’t see anything anywhere about a June 29th deadline for letters. It appears as if Family Security Matters may have simply misunderstood the filing deadline and taken it to have something to do with a letter deadline. Any info on this?

  • 18
    Robert
    June 27th, 2009 20:42

    The good Judge will soon be in receipt of American Grand Jury Presentments aka “Indictments”.

  • 19
    Phil
    June 27th, 2009 21:58

    Greg Goss,

    There are many who believe the motion to dismiss will be granted. However I would ask why the judge would allow comments and make the statements that he has knowing he would more than likely be presented with a motion to dismiss.

    It is interesting to observe that in Hollister v. Soetoro, Judge Robertson went to one extreme by even suggesting that the President’s eligibility had been thoroughly “Twittered” (among other things) while simultaenously claiming he would not make any official commentary on eligibility. Now we swing over to the other side where Judge Schneider wants public commentary on a case.

    I don’t know enough about the Court system to know why it is that a Judge would allow for such anecdotal commentary on a case. Remember that Judges don’t exist in a vacuum; they’re known by the cases they allow just as much as the cases they deny.

    -Phil

  • 20
    Phil
    June 27th, 2009 22:05

    NewEnglandPatriot,

    In that regard, the U.S. attorneys providing the response did a poor job. Cheney failed to follow constitutional procedure as all other presidents of the senate have had to do since the founding of this country. I think that is very specific and it deprived everyone of constitutional rights.

    Marra and Pascal are saying that the injury cannot be generalized. I believe that Apuzzo’s argument is that his plaintiffs all wrote letters to their congressmen before the electoral vote count, advising them of the probably ineligibility of Obama and urging them to do something about it on January 8. They failed to do so. Therefore, it seems to me that the plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutional rights by proper procedure having been ignored.

    Overall I think you’re commentary is spot-on. In reference to your specific comments that I’ve quoted, basically what the Defense is saying is that since the Plaintiffs have no standing, and since the Court lacks jurisdiction to even hear this case, and since the federal officials — such as VP Cheney — are immune from such claims, they — the Defense — have no need to specifically answer the allegations against which their clients are being petitioned for a response.

    Did you notice the footnote early on in the response where they specifically noted that while the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to the People to petition the government for a redress of grievances, it is quite true — and precedental — that the government is not obligated to reciprocate such a petition. In other words, we, the People, can constantly barrage the government to answer for a perceived wrong; the government is not obligated to respond to such petitions.

    In my opinion, this is to say that the government is fully aware of the issues outlined within the scope of this suit; yet, they also know that if they keep throwing legitimate technicalities in we, the People’s direction, then maybe we’ll eventually “get a clue” and shut up which, of course, isn’t going to happen.

    One day, one side is going to blink, and it’s not going to be we, the People.

    -Phil

  • 21
    Phil
    June 27th, 2009 22:15

    ConstitutionSupporter,

    Phil,
    I have been following this whole issue for some time, and see
    where there is a supposed copy of a Kenyan birth certificate from
    the hospital that Obama reportedly could have been born at in
    Kenya. Why don’t we check into this more closely? Or possibly take up
    a collection from donations to buy this off ebay. TheSteadyDrip has
    some info on this, as has WND, and this could possibly be authentic. Has anyone
    thought of doing what this seller says he did? Just go to the Kenyan
    hospital and buy a certified copy from the hospital? Maybe it is
    something everyone else overlooked…but no matter, if everyone who
    is concerned about this issue chipped in 5-10 bucks, if it turned out
    to be fake, no big deal…but if authentic, 5-10 bucks could save US
    citizens trillions.

    If you do a search on my site, you’ll find some earlier postings of mine where Mr. Obama’s family — especially his grandmother — were effectively sealed from making any sort of comment regarding candidate Obama around the time of the presidential election. According to some, this was the second time that the Kenyan government had “gagged” the family from being able to say anything to the press about Mr. Obama.

    Therefore, much of this is likely to be unsubstantiated unless someone can begin sourcing much of this.

    -Phil

  • 22
    magna carta
    June 27th, 2009 23:41

    Here’s whats hitting my mailbox coming in from Dallas area:

    My friend who lives outside Dallas just sent me this:

    Interesting! I just had a phone call from Bryan (her son) saying that he had read on-line that several senators and Dick Cheney had been subpoenaed by a judge in New Jersey, (I think) to question whether O.’s eligibility was properly established by them before he became a candidate. I guess someone does have that job each election year, This has the Internet buzzing and e-mails flying!
    Sue

  • 23
    St. Lucie
    June 27th, 2009 23:43

    eBay has pulled the listing for the certified copy of Coast Provincial Hosp. Obama Birth Cert. because Democratic Underground website hammered eBay admin. with claims that the document is a “forgery and an offensive item.” The seller had received bids up to $10,000 before it was yanked. The seller states that he obtained this cert. while on assignment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as an advisor in the government’s Hydrology & Rain Water Management Administration and later traveled to Kenya. The seller, colmado_naranja, states that he
    has a Bachelors in Sociology, a Bachelors in Social Sciences as well as a Bachelors in Afro-Caribbean Studies, and is a collector of old Dominican and Cuban money.
    This seller is now out at least $10,000 even after attempting to relist his item as His story with the document included free, which eBay also pulled. It does not seem fair, and it does not seem right.

  • 24
    Vincet Omnia Veritas
    June 28th, 2009 09:11

    NewEnglandPatriot says:
    June 27, 2009 at 10:15 am
    …In that regard, the U.S. attorneys providing the response did a poor job. Cheney failed to follow constitutional procedure as all other presidents of the senate have had to do since the founding of this country. I think that is very specific and it deprived everyone of constitutional rights….

    It is difficult to say if the concern about Cheney’s conduct of the electoral vote certification by the joint session of Congress is the dumbest Birther argument of all because there are so many from which to choose but it ranks up high. First, objections must be submitted in writing prior to the session and none were submitted. Secondly, any member could have raised a point of order and demand that Cheney ask for objections. No one did. They all viewed this session as ceremonial.

    The fact that Apuzzo included Cheney in his suit is a good clue that the entire case is frivolous and the defendant’s attorneys were correct in pointing that out.

  • 25
    Sue
    June 28th, 2009 10:02

    Phil,

    Here are some interesting articles you might have missed while you were on vacation.

    http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz/1
    Meet Orly Taitz, Queen Bee of People Obsessed With Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Orly_Taitz.html?showall

    http://washingtonindependent.com/48037/birth-of-an-obsession

    http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/how-much-craziness-are-jones-davis-guernsey-and-mcghee-willing-support

  • 26
    Sam Lowry
    June 28th, 2009 10:04

    Prediction:

    Judge Schneider grants the motion to dismiss.

    You read it here first.

  • 27
    earl
    June 28th, 2009 11:45

    speedy says:
    June 27, 2009 at 3:06 pm
    “WND has an article about a man in Kenya who found BO’s birth certificate at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombassa and is selling it on Ebay. Apparently, it is common knowledge in Kenya that he was born in Kenya and they are proud of it and can’t understand why Americans don’t want to believe it.”

    Another money-making opportunity for Farah, like the billboards – “Heh, send me money to buy the ebay BC! “. That’s how the Nigerian email scheme makes money – selling you something that’s too good to be true. As for Kenyans claiming Pres Obama – it’s the same as Ireland claiming Kennedy as one of their own. Cite where it is “common knowledge” in Kenya he was born in Kenya.

  • 28
    ramjet767
    June 28th, 2009 16:24

    Hi all,

    Re. Kerchner v Obama & Congress. Defendants motion and supporting brief attempting to get a dismissal. Read it here:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/

    Note: The recent motion and supporting brief for dismissal by the defendants in the case has now moved it from the “continued stalling phase” by the defendants, which was being handled at the Magistrate Judge level, up to the full U.S. District Judge level for this case.

    The U.S. District Judge assigned to this case is The Honorable Jerome B. Simandle. Thus if anyone wants to write a letter or send a FAX to the Judge in this case from this point on, regarding the defendants attempts to get a dismissal without the merits being address, the correspondence should be addressed to the U.S. District Judge, Jerome B. Simandle. He is basically at the same address as Magistrate Judge Schneider. However, I will repeat it here for the convenience of the readers. Be sure to reference in your writing or FAX that it is ub reference to the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case:

    Honorable Jerome B. Simandle,
    U.S. District Judge
    United States Courthouse
    Mitchell H. Cohen Building
    4th & Cooper Streets
    Camden NJ 08101

    FAX: 856-757-5370

    Sincerely,

    RJ

  • 29
    Pat
    June 28th, 2009 16:44

    Phil,

    I noticed previously that Obama had paid from campaign a private law firm over $700k in legal fees.

    I see this documentaion as wonder is he ALSO using federal employees (lawyers) to assist in this legal matter even though this was resulting from his actions when he was a private citizen.

    Are we taxpayers responsible for this as well? How can he legally use any monies from campaign funds (which paid the private law firm) when this is about fraud before he ever got into the presidential race?

    Inquiring minds wanna know…

  • 30
    Dallas
    June 28th, 2009 18:52

    Attorney Apuzzo form Kerchner v. Obama, Congress ect. will be on the Patriots Heart Network with Chalice:
    The Chalice Show, talk radio show Sunday evening, 10 Jun 2009, during the 2nd half of the show, approximately from 10:15 to 10:45 p.m. EDT
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

  • 31
    HistorianDude
    June 28th, 2009 20:57

    New England Patriot:

    I have read Attorney Apuzzo’s filing, and it definitely DOES state specifically what Cheney failed to do: He did not ask the question, “Are there any dissenters?” as is required by the Constitution. He never even attempted to utter those words as Pelosi & Company burst into raucous laughter and clapping at the thought of their Criminal-in-Chief being “elected” by the Electoral College.

    (emphasis mine)

    Can you show us anywhere in the Constitution that such a question is “required?”

  • 32
    Phil
    June 28th, 2009 21:38

    Vincet Omnia Veritas,

    It is difficult to say if the concern about Cheney’s conduct of the electoral vote certification by the joint session of Congress is the dumbest Birther argument of all because there are so many from which to choose but it ranks up high. First, objections must be submitted in writing prior to the session and none were submitted. Secondly, any member could have raised a point of order and demand that Cheney ask for objections. No one did. They all viewed this session as ceremonial.

    This is equally the biggest spin on the “dumbest Birther argument of all,” as you have put it, because of the following facts:

    1. While it is absolutely true that any motion to object must be submitted in writing by at least one Senator and one Representative, it is also absolutely true that a presiding officer of the Joint Session must make an explicit call for objections; this protocol was not followed;

    2. One cannot say that “[t]hey all viewed this session as ceremonial” because it is an entirely constitutional endeavor. The Joint Session of Congress, as it appears you’re otherwise well aware, is set up for the purposes of (1) certifying the Electoral College votes from the several States and (2) make a call for objection to any candidate pursuing the presidency. Interesting enough, the former was done, but the latter was skipped.

    -Phil

  • 33
    HistorianDude
    June 28th, 2009 23:58

    Phil:

    1. While it is absolutely true that any motion to object must be submitted in writing by at least one Senator and one Representative, it is also absolutely true that a presiding officer of the Joint Session must make an explicit call for objections; this protocol was not followed;

    It appears that you have misread the law. The law requires that a call for objection must take place after each state’s votes are announced. This did in fact take place… 50 different times. There is no requirement for a generalized call at the end of the count. This supposed omission by Cheney appears to be a figment of somebody’s imagination.

  • 34
    HistorianDude
    June 29th, 2009 00:22

    Here’s the relevant part of 3 US Code Sec. 15:

    Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision;

    (emphasis added)

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

    You will note that this call for objections occurs once for each State as their certificates are read in alphabetical order. There is no requirement anywhere in the law for another call for objections after all the votes have been counted.

  • 35
    Poppet
    June 29th, 2009 00:54

    The birth cerificate for sale on e-bay was most likely
    a set-up by Obamabot’s to make the BC issue seem comical.

    There are several website’s that are offering up to
    $25 Million Dollar’s for it. Why post it for sale at $1 Million?

    http://www.rewardforobamasbirthcertificate.com/

    The only good thing about the e-bay listing is that it keep’s
    the BC issue in the new’s…………Dan/NY

  • 36
    Jacqlyn Smith
    June 29th, 2009 10:12

    HistorianDude says:
    June 27, 2009 at 10:28 am

    Of course, Apuzzo is not being truthful in his account.

    He states that the judge’s “ruling described the issue as a serious constitutional question.” Such a description can be found nowhere in the ruling.

    The closest would be this statement, “Plaintiff’s Complain raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests.”

    There is no mention of any “constitution question” at all, let alone a serious one. As such it is a patent falsehood to assert the judge has described it so.

    For those interested, the judges actual ruling can be found here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/16253400/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-26-Order-Granting-Defendants-Additional-Time-to-Jun-29-2009

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

    HD—-Funny that you put the exact quote….Unfortunately the defendants are still looking for competent counsel…..what about you….seems you think you are all knowing….maybe you can produce a legitimate BC for us Patriots????

  • 37
    HistorianDude
    June 29th, 2009 11:28

    There will apparently be no oral arguments in this case. Bad sign for Mario.

    Filed & Entered: 06/26/2009 Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

    Docket Text: Setting Deadlines as to [27] MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint. Motion set for 7/20/2009 before Judge Jerome B. Simandle. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (js)

    (Emphasis added)

    Also, in response to a phone call, Jackie Kotarski (Judge Schneider’s judicial assistant) stated that Judge Schneider did not request letters or “public commentary.” She said that those announcements in the Birther blogs were “not factual.’

  • 38
    Phil
    June 29th, 2009 11:37

    HistorianDude,

    It appears that you have misread the law. The law requires that a call for objection must take place after each state’s votes are announced. This did in fact take place… 50 different times. There is no requirement for a generalized call at the end of the count.

    I think you’re spinning, and badly. Cite the law where it says anything about a formal objection that must take place at a specific time during the Joint Session. I think you’ll find that it is to take place, not that it must be after each State or what not.

    Also, I think you’re confusing the certification of each State’s Electoral College votes, per se, with the objection to a given candidate.

    -Phil

  • 39
    Phil
    June 29th, 2009 11:44

    HistorianDude,

    You will note that this call for objections occurs once for each State as their certificates are read in alphabetical order. There is no requirement anywhere in the law for another call for objections after all the votes have been counted.

    In my opinion, your interpretation is but one interpretation of this law. I do not doubt the fact that objections could be made during any given State’s certifications being read; I’m simply saying that the law doesn’t specifically say that this is the only time that such objections can be made. Further, the law also does not stipulate in any way that a written motion to object must have already been docketed or otherwise known beforehand for a call for such objections to occur.

    Further, after having watched the 2008 Joint Session live as it proceeded forward, I heard absolutely no call for objections either after each State nor after all States’ votes had been counted. If I did, then I would claim that Mr. Kerchner’s case in this regard would have been frivolous and quite obviously baseless. Instead, I did see that each State’s certification was recognized for the record as being legitimate.

    Remember, let’s not forget that there were supposed to have been two analyses going on: one to verify the Electoral College voter certifications and another to handle potential objections to any given presidential candidates.

    -Phil

  • 40
    Phil
    June 29th, 2009 11:52

    HistorianDude,

    Also, in response to a phone call, Jackie Kotarski (Judge Schneider’s judicial assistant) stated that Judge Schneider did not request letters or “public commentary.” She said that those announcements in the Birther blogs were “not factual.’

    In the first place, I certainly hope that the assistant isn’t using the verbiage, “Birther blogs” in her response to you; that would show seriously bad form on her part and a clear bias in this case.

    Secondly, we are apparently dealing with two different Judges, so that further clouds the proverbial waters over attempting to relay “he-said, she-said”-based heresay.

    -Phil

  • 41
    HistorianDude
    June 29th, 2009 11:56

    Phil:

    I think you’re spinning, and badly. Cite the law where it says anything about a formal objection that must take place at a specific time during the Joint Session. I think you’ll find that it is to take place, not that it must be after each State or what not.

    Me “spinning” Phil? Then what do we call your complete censorship of the already posted text of the law that guides the process of Congress’s verification of the Electoral Vote Count?

    I already cited the law. You then went on to censor the post. [Apology for misconstrued post censor accepted]

    But here it is again:

    3 US Code § 15

    Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision;

    You will note that the objections are explicitly to be made “Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper.” When is the only time that takes place?

    “(C)ertificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A.”

    There it is… the “specific time during the Joint Session.” Not only is this the specific time prescribed by the law, it actually is the time at which the President of the Senate asks for objections. It took place exactly as required by law this last January.

    Also, I think you’re confusing the certification of each State’s Electoral College votes, per se, with the objection to a given candidate.

    How could that be possible, Phil, when there is no requirement for a request for “objection to a given candidate” at all? You are suggesting that I have confused a real requirement with a requirement that does not exist at all. That would be a very neat trick.

    The only confusion here is yours, Phil. That this is the requirement you are confusing is proved by your observations that the call for objection should be verbal, that the objection should be in writing, and that it should be signed by one Senator and one Representative. These are all explicit requirements of objections to the individual State certifications… and only requirements of objections to the individual State certifications.

    The claim that Cheney failed to follow the explicit legal form of the joint session is, like so many other fake Birther factoids, a complete fabrication invented by someone who has never taken the time to read the actual law.

  • 42
    HistorianDude
    June 29th, 2009 12:07

    Jacqlyn Smith:

    HD—-Funny that you put the exact quote….Unfortunately the defendants are still looking for competent counsel…..what about you….seems you think you are all knowing….maybe you can produce a legitimate BC for us Patriots????

    I am not “all knowing”… though I certainly do know a lot. I know enough that I have yet to be wrong in my prediction of an outcome of a single decision on a single Birther case to this point. As such, I have a far better track record than any Birther lawyer.

    That said, Obama presented a legitimate BC over a year ago.

  • 43
    HistorianDude
    June 29th, 2009 12:11

    Phil:

    Remember, let’s not forget that there were supposed to have been two analyses going on: one to verify the Electoral College voter certifications and another to handle potential objections to any given presidential candidates.

    Only the first of those two “analyses” has an objection process required by law.

  • 44
    Phil
    June 29th, 2009 12:18

    HistorianDude,

    Only the first of those two “analyses” has an objection process required by law.

    Again, we have a difference of opinion.

    I would only add that there is a requirement to call for objections, but not to actually make such a motion.

    -Phil

  • 45
    Civis naturaliter natus
    June 29th, 2009 12:31

    HistorianDude says:

    June 29, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    Jacqlyn Smith says:

    HD—-Funny that you put the exact quote….Unfortunately the defendants are still looking for competent counsel…..what about you….seems you think you are all knowing….maybe you can produce a legitimate BC for us Patriots????

    I am not “all knowing”… though I certainly do know a lot. I know enough that I have yet to be wrong in my prediction of an outcome of a single decision on a single Birther case to this point. As such, I have a far better track record than any Birther lawyer.

    That said, Obama presented a legitimate BC over a year ago.

    HD, there you go, lying again. No one, neither Zero nor any of his supporters, ever presented a Birth Certificate for public pervue. Nor do I remember any news story that claimed that a Birth Certificate was presented for private pervue. All that is claimed is that a COLB was presented. For you to morph that into a Birth Certificate, is disingenuous. And don’t give us the old canard that they are the same, since Hawaiian law say they are not the same document.

  • 46
    earl
    June 29th, 2009 12:55

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4

    Cheney calls for objection at 1:07 when he says “without objection”.

  • 47
    earl
    June 29th, 2009 13:12

    Civis naturaliter natus says:
    June 29, 2009 at 12:31 pm
    ” And don’t give us the old canard that they are the same, since Hawaiian law say they are not the same document.”

    Hawaiian law clearly says they ARE the same document. At the bottom of the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth is a statement that reads “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”[HRS338-13(b), 338-19]

    HRS 338-13(b) says: “Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original”
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm

    HRS 338-19 says: “The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original.”
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0019.htm

  • 48
    jenny
    June 29th, 2009 13:15

    Dear Phil,

    The current people in our White House and those who administrate are not required to follow our Constitution because themselves do not have standing to do so. Am I correct in saying that indeed “Here lies the sleeping dog?” Or would it be called “chek” in the game of of chess? Thankyou, for your time. Unfortunatly, my education left me seeking truth. Gracefully, your education allows you to expose the truth to the best of your ability.

    God’s Speed.

  • 49
    HistorianDude
    June 29th, 2009 13:21

    Civis naturaliter natus:

    HD, there you go, lying again. No one, neither Zero nor any of his supporters, ever presented a Birth Certificate for public pervue.

    Then what, pray tell, have you guys been shouting about being a forgery for the last year? How much more public can you get than posting on the Internet?

    Nor do I remember any news story that claimed that a Birth Certificate was presented for private pervue.

    Then what, pray tell, was the FactCheck article other than a presentation of the birth certificate for private revue and examination?

    All that is claimed is that a COLB was presented. For you to morph that into a Birth Certificate, is disingenuous. And don’t give us the old canard that they are the same, since Hawaiian law say they are not the same document.

    Hawaiian law says that they are the same document. Your claim aotherwiase is merely another fake Birther factoid.

    This was reasserted just three weeks ago.

    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

    The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.

    Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

  • 50
    Pete
    June 29th, 2009 13:38

    Historian dude provides:
    3 US Code § 15
    “…Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing,….

    My gratitude to Historian dude for providing the US code. There is no doubt, from my reading this, that Dick Cheney MUST call for objections. Those objections MUST also be provided in writing. Dick Cheney did not call for objections, and I have seen the video. I have to go with Phil interpretation on this, but ultimately the judge must decide.

    I would hope that we all can agree that the representative branch and executive branch cannot, either by neglect or deliberation, deny basic protocols and requirements for any high office. The opinion of historiandude is that the US code was followed. The judge should grant discovery and make a ruling on this US code, since Historiandude supports seeking the truth, I am sure he would agree.

  • 51
    Dr. Conspiracy
    June 29th, 2009 13:42

    WorldNetDaily has been highly irresponsible in reporting this case, creating expectations that the court is “friendly” to the suit or thinks it has importance. The court has given no such indication.

    Of the 20 letters filed in Kerchner, 16 were composed by the same person (identical typos), and I suppose sent in by different people. They all urged that the court not extend the deadline (moot now that the government has responded).

    Having responded to the “merits” of Kerchner in a series of articles myself, I can attest the the fact that the 2nd amended complaint is painfully and unnecessarily long, and I totally sympathize with the government’s reluctance to wade through it trying to “find a gold coin in a bucket of mud” as the government response quoted.

  • 52
    ramjet767
    June 29th, 2009 14:16

    Hawaiian newspaper to WND: Drop dead.
    Star-Bulletin rejects full-page ad asking for help on Obama’s birth.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102496

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

  • 53
    bob strauss
    June 29th, 2009 14:51

    HD, all they presented was a photoshopped, forgery, and called it a birth certificate, for the purpose, of defrauding the voters.

  • 54
    NewEnglandPatriot
    June 29th, 2009 16:26

    I listened to the broadcast last night, and I could have sworn that I heard the plaintiff, Mr. Kerchner, say that the judge had solicited letters. In either case, I mailed a letter and faxed another on my own, before hearing the radio show. I recall Attorney Apuzzo saying that letters were being added to the file. So I find nothing misleading about any of the coverage, either here or on WorldNetDaily.

    Both Apuzzo and Kerchner said that it is highly unusual for a judge to do that. I didn’t really think the judge “asked” for letters, but he is accepting them, according to Apuzzo. I even heard Apuzzo say that U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald sent a letter to Judge Schneider that was included in the file.

    The latest word from Patriots’ Heart Network is NOT to send a fax, as their fax crashed today from all the letters. Use any type of snail mail, e.g., USPS, FedEx, etc., but not a fax.

  • 55
    Robert
    June 29th, 2009 17:00

    When I was here this morning, I noticed one of our Obot apologists asking how we knew if Judge Schneider was accepting letters from the public. Here’s a first hand report. I love the sig line. LOL

    _______________
    Quote
    the ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about, and refuse to investigate

    XXXXXTx Quote#18 Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:44 am
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Posts: 2 Hey all,
    I’ve been trying to fax to Judge Schneider all weekend. Fax was busy. Tried again this morning. Fax just rang and rang. Called Judge’s office..Was told that Fax was down, but Judge would take letter until tomorrow. I overnighted the letter by Fed Ex and documented all that was said and done. If you still want to…. Overnight your letters.
    XXXXXX

  • 56
    Robert
    June 29th, 2009 17:05

    If this is a double post, I’m sorry.

    Here is the proof that Judge Schneider is accepting letters from the public.
    _______________
    Quote
    the ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about, and refuse to investigate

    XXXXXXTx Quote#18 Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:44 am
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Posts: 2 Hey all,
    I’ve been trying to fax to Judge Schneider all weekend. Fax was busy. Tried again this morning. Fax just rang and rang. Called Judge’s office..Was told that Fax was down, but Judge would take letter until tomorrow. I overnighted the letter by Fed Ex and documented all that was said and done. If you still want to…. Overnight your letters.
    XXXXXX

  • 57
    Practical Kat
    June 29th, 2009 17:32

    Phil wrote:

    I’m simply saying that the law doesn’t specifically say that this is the only time that such objections can be made. Further, the law also does not stipulate in any way that a written motion to object must have already been docketed or otherwise known beforehand for a call for such objections to occur.

    That’s true — and that means that there is nothing in particular that the presiding officer (in this case Cheney) is required to do.

    People who have objections in a proceeding need to take initiative to make sure their objections are raised and heard; otherwise their objections are waived and the fault lies with the would-be objector, NOT with the presiding officer. Certainly any lawyer in a courtroom would know this — they have to speak up to evidence, and if follow the proper forms for raising the objects. I think its pretty fair to say that the vast majority of Senators and Representatives are equally familiar with procedures in Congress, and know exactly what they have to do if they want to be heard on a matter. If you watch proceedings on C-Span — some of the process might seem arcane and confusing to a lay observer — but it is part of the job of the Congress members to know all of those rules and procedures. (Certainly in 2000 and 2004 it was demonstrated repeatedly that the Democrats who had concerns about the votes in Florida and Ohio had figured out how to express them – even though of course they did not prevail).

    It is not Dick Cheney’s fault that there wasn’t a single Republican in Congress willing to stand up and raise a question or concern about Obama’s eligibility. He did his job.

    It might be a different case if there was evidence of someone trying to raise a proper objections and then being refused. For example, if a proper written objection had been submitted, and then Cheney had refused to allow it to be heard or debated — then perhaps there would be a valid reason to complain against him. (Though probably not a valid lawsuit, under ordinary principals of legislative immunity).

  • 58
    Practical Kat
    June 29th, 2009 17:54

    You can view the entire Congressional proceedings on counting the electoral college vote here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4

    You won’t see a formal “call for objections”. However, at various times through the tape you can see individuals approaching the rostrum to deliver paperwork, etc. (when the camera happens to show that area). I think the procedure that would be followed for a written objection would simply be that the objectors would approach the rostrum at an appropriate time and deliver their paper objection to the clerk, who would in turn inform the teller. That’s just the normal way that people in Congress go about letting the presiding officer know they want to be heard.

  • 59
    da verg
    June 29th, 2009 19:16

    historian dude
    i watched it, live, they did not call for objections

    also, your copy of the constitution does not say after every state.

    read it

    for once

  • 60
    da verg
    June 29th, 2009 19:17

    constitutional supporter

    jim corsi went to kenya
    found the birth certificate
    was ready to announce it when obingo
    obama’s cousin arrested him,
    tortured him, kidnapped him, and forced
    him to leave the country

    now you know what you are up against, here.

  • 61
    brygenon
    June 29th, 2009 19:38

    Poppet thought:

    The birth cerificate for sale on e-bay was most likely
    a set-up by Obamabot’s to make the BC issue seem comical.

    There are several website’s that are offering up to
    $25 Million Dollar’s for it. Why post it for sale at $1 Million?

    http://www.rewardforobamasbirthcertificate.com/

    The certificate offer on e-bay was comical — you’re right about that — but that $25,000,000 reward is at just as laughable. May I ask why you think megagenius@verizon.net has $25,000,000?

    No, Poppet, we Obamabots did not set you up. All you.

  • 62
    brygenon
    June 29th, 2009 19:46

    C.V. Natus says:

    HD, there you go, lying again. No one, neither Zero nor any of his supporters, ever presented a Birth Certificate for public pervue. Nor do I remember any news story that claimed that a Birth Certificate was presented for private pervue. All that is claimed is that a COLB was presented. For you to morph that into a Birth Certificate, is disingenuous.

    Hawaii says otherwise.

    “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

    The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.”
    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

    And don’t give us the old canard that they are the same, since Hawaiian law say they are not the same document.

    Will you be big enough to issue the appropriate retraction and apology to HistorianDude?

  • 63
    Roderick
    June 29th, 2009 20:41

    I think China and Russia have standing. Yeah that’s it China and Russia should band together and bring a case against the United State Senate. They are the only ones who have standing because they are not private citizens wondering where their tax money is going to. The government of China and Russia have a lot at stake right now since they support the communist dictator in the white house and they have everything to lose. Go figure.

  • 64
    MaineSkeptic
    June 29th, 2009 21:12

    Civis naturaliter natus says:

    And don’t give us the old canard that they are the same, since Hawaiian law say they are not the same document.

    And civis naturaliter natus is completely wrong:

    Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”

    She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”

    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

  • 65
    Phil
    June 29th, 2009 21:39

    earl,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4

    Cheney calls for objection at 1:07 when he says “without objection”.

    As long as that’s exactly what happened during the 2000 and 2004 Joint Sessions of Congress for an explicit call for objections, then I might consider buying your opinion.

    -Phil

  • 66
    Phil
    June 29th, 2009 21:49

    Robert,

    Here is the proof that Judge Schneider is accepting letters from the public.

    Whether or not the Judge is accepting letters has never been the issue. Rather, the issue has been whether or not the Judge is making positive considerations for the case on the part of the petitioners by specifically asking for letters.

    -Phil

  • 67
    Phil
    June 29th, 2009 21:51

    Practical Kat,

    That’s true — and that means that there is nothing in particular that the presiding officer (in this case Cheney) is required to do.

    Unfortunately, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In the case of a Joint Session determining Electoral College vote certification, the President of the Senate is absolutely required to call for objections, regardless of whether or not such objections exist.

    I thought the federal law was clear on this point, but I guess that’s why we have a Judiciary.

    -Phil

  • 68
    ramjet767
    June 29th, 2009 22:01

    Cheney when he said “without objection” at that point in the session as shown in the video cited, in the joint session process, was dispensing with the reading of the entire full text of each certification of vote document from each state and to only read the votes for each state, all the whereas, whereas, etc., above the electors signatures and vote tally for there state. Listen to the words he says before and after when he says without objection at that point in the session.

    What Cheney was required to do by USC Title 3 Section 15, and did NOT do, was after the report of each vote tally for each state proceeding alphabetically to specifically and openly ask if there were any objections to that state’s votes. That is required by USC Title 3 Section 15. He must call openly for any objections to the vote of each state after each and every states’ vote is reported. Cheney broke the law by ignoring the specific requirement of USC Title 3 Section 15.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015—-000-.html

    That failing to call for the objections for each and every state one at a time is one of the reasons that Cheney is named in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit. Read the lawsuit for more details, starting on page 26:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

    The O-Bots here keep wishing to confuse people and obfuscate the issue. You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. Obama’s time in continuing the fraud he has perpetrated is nearing an end.

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

  • 69
    Jacqlyn Smith
    June 29th, 2009 22:09

    HistorianDude says:
    June 29, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    Jacqlyn Smith:

    HD—-Funny that you put the exact quote….Unfortunately the defendants are still looking for competent counsel…..what about you….seems you think you are all knowing….maybe you can produce a legitimate BC for us Patriots????

    I am not “all knowing”… though I certainly do know a lot. I know enough that I have yet to be wrong in my prediction of an outcome of a single decision on a single Birther case to this point. As such, I have a far better track record than any Birther lawyer.

    That said, Obama presented a legitimate BC over a year ago.

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

    HD….Your writings to me and others only shows your arrogance much like the FRAUD you voted in for POTUS….much of what you write is opinion and speculation. We have all the proof we need to show the IMPOSTER needs to go….we only need a judge or law official with some balls to take the case on and bring it to discovery….once this happens and the FRAUD must produce legal documents then you and your kind will be toast….the sooner the better for the good of our country and those who truly want a free and prosperous society!!! If you want a different America than the one our founding fathers produced then my suggestion to you is move to China or Russia where the tyrants want to socialize everything and rule with an iron fist…then let’s see who many of you LIBERAL hypocrites come running back to America!!

  • 70
    Riddle: Phil/et al: If con-man-Barry Soetoro' Is At White House, But "Phil" And Patriots Reading This: (fire for fire & games for games); We Do Legally Change Our Name To "Barrack Hussain Obama" then who is POTUS?
    June 29th, 2009 22:25

    Phil, if you legally change your name to Barrack Hussain Obama, then are you the POTUS?

    AS BARRY SOETORO: REMAINS

    Just: BARRY:

    AND CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS SHOW THAT YOU (Phil) ARE POTUS,

    AND

    BARRY SOETORO IS A NOBODY/ILLEGAL ALIEN!?

    *******

    IF WE HAVE 3 million patriots marching on Washington D C , who have changed our names to “BHO” and every three or four days we:

    ** ** “CO’s/Constitution Originalist”****

    -close down major highways in protests, .

    And

    How many “PROVERBAL: ALBATROSSES”. AROUND BO’S NECK WILL HIS his Infidelious drones: move on to the next wacko to follow?

    Or

    If Orly Taitz also changes her name to Barrack Hussain Obama, is she President ?

    Or

    ” More. IMPORTANTLY , WOULD SHE HAVE CREATED THREE THINGS:

    1). IMMEDIATE, MAXIUM STANDING. BEFORE SCOTUS TO COERCE EXTRA-ORDINARY WRIT
    PREVENTING “BARRY” FROM ACTING AS POTUS, AND TO QUIT THE WHITE HOUSE, ALONG WITH ALL HIS FAKE APPOINTEES!

    2) SHE IS NOW THE SOLE AUTHORIZED “SIGNATUREE” OF ALL BHO DOCUMENTS! SCHOOLS/MEDICAL/BIRTH CERTIFICATES!

    3). SHE, AS BHO COULD FIRE JOE BIDEN / DEMAND HE RESIGN,
    *AND SHE COULD APPOINT THOMAS SHOLLE Or. Clarence Thomas. OR “TONY DOUNGIE” AS Vice-POTUS;

    She could resign and be appointed as US ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO PROSECUTE AIDING AND BETTING “HOLDER ET-AL,”

    ***

    PUT TONY DONGIE AS POTUS AND THOMAS SOLE AS VP! AS
    EMEMERGENCY! Solutions
    TO HEAL NATION AND OF BIGOTRY OF SORROS/OBAMA

    But.

    Greatly and Dramatically carry:

    ! Real- Image- Dolls of “bo” with his. diabolical- Horns on his Head /

    Pitch-forked- in- hand- slaughtering- minority- babies- that he is always bragging about-killing !

    Put these on ebay
    And

    Carry obama’s Horn @ Cycle flag

    With

    Bold @ big letters signs :

    { BO’s: }
    { }
    { “—-K—- Y—– S—–S—-” }
    { }
    { of death: }

    { KEEP. }
    { }
    { YOU. }
    { }
    { STUPID. }
    { }
    { SUCKERS!!!! }

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

    But:

    EXPOSING TRUTH IN REALITY!

    WE ARE THE REPLACEMENT MEDIA!?

  • 71
    john
    June 29th, 2009 22:58

    Chaney Messed up. He supposed to call for objections and did not.

    http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/docs/cr1997.pdf

    This is record for the 1996 Election that Bill Clinton easily won.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4

    He is the video of Joint Session of Congress with Chaney leading.

    Listen to it. The wording is nearly identical to that of the video.

    However, Chaney screwed by not asking for objections.

    In the video Chaney does state the following:

    “Without Objection The tellers will….”

    However, this was the only objection ever made and not followed through.

    Reading the 1996 record indicates several keys points:

    Vice President: Under well-established precedents,
    unless a motion shall be made in any
    case, the reading of the formal portions
    of the certificates will be dispensed
    with. After ascertainment has been had
    that the certificates are authentic and
    correct in form, the tellers will count
    and make a list of the votes cast by the
    electors of the several States.

    Senator WARNER (one of the tellers).
    Mr. President, the certificate of
    the electoral vote of the State of Alabama
    seems to be regular in form and
    authentic, and it appears therefrom
    that Bob Dole of the State of Kansas
    received 9 votes for President, and
    Jack Kemp of the State of Maryland
    received 9 votes for Vice President.
    The VICE PRESIDENT. If there is no
    objection, the Chair will omit in the
    further procedure the formal statement
    just made, and we will open the certificates
    in alphabetical order and pass to
    the tellers the certificates showing the
    votes of the electors in each State; and
    the tellers will then read, count and
    announce the result in each State as
    was done with respect to the State of
    Alabama.
    Is there objection?
    The Chair hears no objection.
    There was no objection.
    The tellers then proceeded to read,
    count, and announce, as was done in
    the case of the State of Alabama, the
    electoral votes of the several States in
    alphabetical order.

  • 72
    MoniQue
    June 30th, 2009 00:32

    The fact is that certifications of live birth were widely issued to Hawaiians born in foreign countries in 1961, the year Obama was born. It is a certificate of BIRTH REGISTRY, but NOT a certificate of live birth certifying birth in the actual state of Hawaii or verifying the actual birth weight, doctor names, etc there in HAWAII.

    But before I go on, let’s just cut out all the bullshevik: One fact remains: If Obama had a real certificate of live birth certifying he was in fact actually born in the state of Hawaii, he would’ve produced it rather quickly. The proof of that is that he sure produced a fake photoshop forgery within 24 hours of the media inquiring about it now didn’t he?

    Now, about the birth announcement:

    Even if Obama’s birth announcement is real and not a forgery, it still doesn’t prove a thing. Birth announcements are vanity listings submitted to newspapers. He was born on Aug 4th but it didn’t appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser until Aug. 13, 1961. It said that Mr. and Mrs. BHO had a son on Aug. 4, 1961 (this is a lie too since Obama’s mother was not married to the father Obama then either). It gives an address as 605 Kalaninole Highway which is also in dispute by investigators who spoke to the residents who lived there at that time. It does not give the name of a hospital were the birth occurred or the name of the son. It only proves his mother announced his birth. And that may in fact may of came to being to establish residency which is required by law to get a registry of birth.

    In Obama’s own words in his book he talks of a different form of the birth record because he relates of how it included his birth weight. However, the registry copy does not include that data.
    To this very day there is no record ANYWHERE AT ANY HOSPITAL IN HAWAII OF OBAMA’S BIRTH. No hospital birth certificate has been produced to show Obama was born in Hawaii, only a certificate of birth registry after the fact, which forensics experts have denounced as a forgery.

    Using a vanity listing submitted to a newspaper is just not going to cut it. Reminds me of me getting my DBA when I started my first business when I was a kid, I didn’t even have a bank account, nor an office, yet I submitted my announcement to the newspaper that I was a new business and provided an address and name of business. So much for vanity newspaper announcements.

    Here’s an article that might help explain that the certificate of birth registry is not even legal to get a driver’s license.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100451

    References:
    Without going into all the issues over the document itself there is a hole or loop hole in the Hawaiian Statutes you can drive a truck through about the birth documentation.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

    [§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]

    Now what this all means is BHO could have been born in Japan on a shopping trip or Kenya on a visit to the old homestead and he could still get a document saying he was ‘born in the USA’

    As long as the birth mother in this case proved her Hawaiian residency and said my kid was born in say Seattle but by virtue of my state citizenship I want the birth to show here and poof we now have a Hawaiian birth record.

    Well sorry folks that is a vanity listing submitted to the paper since only a few of those appear each day and they are dwarfed by the number of kids born in the islands.

    Just like marriage news items are only a sample of all the marriages done.

    Local people interested in this issue in Hawaii have tried to find anybody who worked the hospitals back then in the delivery rooms to recall if such a birth was done.
    The loophole in the law makes even the COLB a problem.

    To fully find out what happened the state record will have to be opened to see if he was born in Hawaii and the court may have to demand that.

    The COLB is built from source documents.

    The doctor who attended the birth (or nurse who certifies from the delivery room or even a midwife in some cases) has to submit the paperwork to document the trail.

    If he was born out of state and the COLB is by the mothers certification then that documentation would be in the record.

    People have been trying every angle on this from talking to people who worked in the delivery rooms then to trying to access lists of who used the delivery rooms to even admission records or ambulance records to get to the hospital.

    Right now nobody can find a shred to support the birth in either hospital of size there because partly of current privacy laws.

    BHO in his books talks of a different form of the birth record because he relates of how it included his birth weight. The current COLB does not but 60s era COLBs issued then did include that data.

    Trouble is if you request a copy today you only get the same info you see on the newer version and you will not for example see the birth weight given.

    There is much more data in the source file at the state that the COLB is extracted from and that is the real data that needs to be looked at.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2101146/posts

    Moreover, when Obama was six years old his mother remarried and moved with her husband to his country, Indonesia. Records indicate Obama was naturalized as an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia does not allow dual nationality, so even had he been born in Hawaii, he would have lost his citizenship then.
    ********************************************************

  • 73
    MoniQue
    June 30th, 2009 00:33

    Well, here we are AGAIN discussing usurper Obama, as if he were a REAL PRESIDENT, when in fact he doesn’t even meet the basic ELIGIBILITY requirements to BE president (not born on American soil). It’s not a small matter of him not providing a real US birth certificate when asked by the American people, it’s that HE DOESN’T HAVE ONE TO BEGiN WITH because he was BORN IN KENYA.

    Which by the way, makes every bill Obama signs and every THING he DOES acting as president, iLLEGAL. And pretty much means if we let this go on we are breaking the law right along with him. CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES!

    Come join me and help put up another billboard around the USA, it’s only $5 the cost for a pack of smokey-dokes (a pack of ciggs for Obama)
    “WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?”
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102329

    CLICK HERE TO HELP DONATE MORE BILLBOARDS ACROSS THE USA (you know, the country that requires a president be born on U.S. soil?)
    http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/%E2%80%A2-latest-update-on-obama-birth-certificate-case/

    At least we’ll get to SEE the question being asked, since the media will not!

  • 74
    brygenon
    June 30th, 2009 02:02

    Phil wrote:

    earl [wrote],

    Cheney calls for objection at 1:07 when he says “without objection”.

    As long as that’s exactly what happened during the 2000 and 2004 Joint Sessions of Congress for an explicit call for objections, then I might consider buying your opinion.

    Those predate YouTube, and the correspondence is less than “exact”, but the precedents you note are not on your side. The 2004 electoral vote count was very much the same, but 2000 was something else. The President of the Senate not only failed to solicit objections, he worked behind the scenes to suppress them.

    In counting the elector votes for this last election, there simply was no objection from any member of the U.S. Congress. There was in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but the SCOTUS decision on Bush v. Gore gave G.W. Bush the electoral majority. Why didn’t the candidate who received the most votes sue the President of the Senate for failing to call for objections? It was because… well, if you don’t know, look it up.

  • 75
    Practical Kat
    June 30th, 2009 03:17

    Unfortunately, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In the case of a Joint Session determining Electoral College vote certification, the President of the Senate is absolutely required to call for objections, regardless of whether or not such objections exist.

    Even if you were correct procedurally, it would be irrelevant unless someone actually had attempted to raise an objection. At most it would be a technical violation of the statute, but it wouldn’t impact the validity of the proceedings if no one can be shown to have been prejudiced by the omission. And there can’t be any showing of prejudice unless someone comes forward and says that there was a proper written objection ready to be submitted, which was held back simply because of Cheney’s failure to ask for it.

    (This is simply an elemental rule of law – you can’t “sue” for any sort of act or omission unless you can show harm arising from that omission.) And every technical violation of a set of procedural rules certainly doesn’t undermine the overall validity of the proceedings.

    However, I interpret the law differently than you, because of this language in 3 USC 15:

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

    (emphasis added)

    You are interpreting the statute in a way that would render the phrase “if any” meaningless: i.e., the President of the Senate shall call for objections even if there are none.

    I interpret “if any” to mean that he only has to call for objections if there are “any” — and I interpret the next sentence to mean that the objections can not be made orally after the certificate has been read. Since it can only be made in writing – signed by a member of each House, it stands to reason that the objectors must transmit their written objection to the President or the clerk at some time prior to the conclusion of the reading of the paper, in order to trigger the obligation of the President to “call for” them. (“if any” must mean that if there are none, then no such obligation exists)

    The next sentence of the statute reads:

    When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision

    (emphasis added)

    I interpret the reference to “all objections” being “received and read” to reinforce my interpretation that the obligation to call for objections is triggered by the filing of at least one written objection. In my view the purpose of the statute is to specify the order of procedure, not to prolong the proceedings with meaningless gestures or to add some sort of ceremonial touch to the process.

    The statute is explaining how things will be handled if a proper written objection has been “received”. For example, it tells us that if someone files an objection to the vote from Alaska, the Senate President does not have the option of deferring that objection to the end of roll call of all the states, even though Alaska is a tiny state and everyone is in a hurry to get to the votes from California.

    “If any”= Senate President obligated to “call” for them at the appropriate time, and “all” must then be received.

    If none = then no obligation or duty to “call” exists.

  • 76
    Practical Kat
    June 30th, 2009 03:32

    Phil wrote:

    As long as that’s exactly what happened during the 2000 and 2004 Joint Sessions of Congress for an explicit call for objections, then I might consider buying your opinion.

    (referring to Earl’s statement, Cheney calls for objection at 1:07 when he says “without objection”.)

    In 2000 and 2004 there WERE objections made, so obviously the situation was then different.

    In 2000, the objections were improper, because they were not joined by any Senators. In 2004, there was a procedurally proper objection raised to the Ohio vote (that is, signed by a member of each house), and it was heard accordingly. Here is what happened:

    The House of Representatives and Senate met Thursday afternoon in a constitutionally mandated session to count the electoral votes. Vice President Dick Cheney, in his role as president of the Senate, presided over the session.

    The results from each state, read in alphabetical order, were ticked through quickly until Ohio was called, and a clerk read the letter of objection from Boxer and Tubbs Jones.

    Cheney then ordered the lawmakers back to their respective chambers for two hours of debate on the merits of the challenge.

    It is only the second such challenge since the current rules for counting electoral votes were established in 1877. The last was in 1969 and it concerned a so-called “faithless elector,” according to congressional researchers.

    Four years ago, after the disputed election results in Florida, members of the Congressional Black Caucus attempted to block Florida’s electoral votes from being counted.

    In a scene recalled in Michael Moore’s movie “Fahrenheit 9/11,” lawmaker after lawmaker was gaveled down by Vice President Al Gore because no senator would support the objections, as the law requires.

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote.1718/index.html (emphasis added)

  • 77
    earl
    June 30th, 2009 07:31

    ramjet767 says:
    June 29, 2009 at 10:01 pm
    “What Cheney was required to do by USC Title 3 Section 15, and did NOT do, was after the report of each vote tally for each state proceeding alphabetically to specifically and openly ask if there were any objections to that state’s votes. That is required by USC Title 3 Section 15. He must call openly for any objections to the vote of each state after each and every states’ vote is reported. Cheney broke the law by ignoring the specific requirement of USC Title 3 Section 15.”

    The phrase “without objection” covered the entire process. Someone needs to find the proceedings for 2000 and 2004 and check if Al Gore and Dick Cheney asked for objections then.

  • 78
    earl
    June 30th, 2009 07:41

    Here are the Jan 6, 2001 proceedings from CSPAN. It’s 90 minutes and I can’t get it to play. Perhaps someone else will have better luck.

    http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2001/01/07/HP/A/53/Entire+Program.aspx

  • 79
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 08:40

    Practical Kat,

    The bottom line regarding all opinions on law is that we have no judicial precedent by which we can go to determine which way is the “correct” way. And asking for a Court to render an opinion is not — as so many have claimed on this blog and other sites — “right-wing extremism” or being a part of the “fringe.”

    -Phil

  • 80
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 08:42

    earl,

    The phrase “without objection” covered the entire process. Someone needs to find the proceedings for 2000 and 2004 and check if Al Gore and Dick Cheney asked for objections then.

    No, sir. Please read up on parliamentary procedure. “Without objection” is used within the context (scope) of whatever motion is being considered at that moment from the floor. You will notice that Mr. Cheney invoked this phrase each and every time a State’s electoral votes were being announced. It cannot be used outside of the context of any given question, as that would be, categorically, out of order.

    If you’re at all familiar with computer programming, then you would thoroughly understand the context of local and global scope. The same applies with the law.

    -Phil

  • 81
    Civis naturaliter natus
    June 30th, 2009 09:36

    Monique,

    Thank you for more than amply showing that Earl, Brygenon and HD are lying, misrepresenting the law, and resorting to the silliness of citing a newspaper article as if it was a Hawaiian legislative record….

    You show, like many other patriots here, that you are in touch with reality, while they show that they are in touch with their own fantasies of what the law should be.

    They constantly play this semantic game:

    Patriot says: The facts are such and such.

    Obot says: The facts are not such an such, because such and such does not mean such and such but so and so.

    Patriot Says: Cite me the law.

    Obot says: Here is the law: “Such and such is such and such.” See! it does not say that “such and such means such and such”, but “such and such is such and such”, but we know that “such and such means so and so”, and that is how you must understand the law.

    Patriot says: Why?

    Obot says: Because you are a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist to question our god and messiah, the big BS himself…

  • 82
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 10:10

    Jacqlyn Smith:

    HD….Your writings to me and others only shows your arrogance much like the FRAUD you voted in for POTUS….much of what you write is opinion and speculation.

    The irony that flows like a torrent through the Birther movement is rarely displayed with greater clarity than in posts such as this. It is useful now and then to take a step back and recognize that the entire Birther narrative is speculation and nothing more. There does not exist any evidence whatsoever that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. There does not exist any evidence anywhere that Obama ever possessed an Indonesian passport. There does not exist any evidence anywhere that under 1961 Hawaiian law a single foreigner was ever issued a Hawaiian birth certificate saying he was born in Honolulu. There does not exist any evidence anywhere that the Birther complaint is true.

    It is pure, unadulterated speculation.

    This contrasts rather dramatically with Obama’s release of a State issued and certified birth certificate that meets to the letter the State Department standards for proof of citizenship at birth. That single document remains to this point completely unchallenged by a single piece of Birther evidence.

    So… I am well deserving of the chuckle I get each time such bluster is presented in the sorry attempt to cover up the complete vacuum that is the Birther tale.

    We have all the proof we need to show the IMPOSTER needs to go….we only need a judge or law official with some balls to take the case on and bring it to discovery….once this happens and the FRAUD must produce legal documents then you and your kind will be toast….the sooner the better for the good of our country and those who truly want a free and prosperous society!!!

    What “proof” is that? Exactly?

    I have (as you well know) been following this issue since August of last year. I am still waiting for the first piece of Birther evidence that Obama is not exactly who he has always claimed he is. You certainly provide none in this post. Phil certainly has provided none anywhere in this blog.

    As for “me and my kind” (whatever that means) being “toast,” I am compelled to ask. Is that supposed to be a threat?

    If you want a different America than the one our founding fathers produced then my suggestion to you is move to China or Russia where the tyrants want to socialize everything and rule with an iron fist…then let’s see who many of you LIBERAL hypocrites come running back to America!!

    If you want the same America that our founding fathers produced, then I hope you are not a black person. You would probably object to being a slave. If you want the same America that our founding fathers produced, then I hope you are not a woman. You would probably object to being a second class citizen denied the right to vote.

    There is a reason the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The first draft was not perfect.

    But of course, that is neither here nor there for the immediate discussion since Obama is absolutely Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS. The only persons consistently calling for a trashing of the Constitution are those Birthers who pretend that there is any authority on the planet other than Congress for removing a sitting President. It does not matter if you promote a judicial coup a la Berg, or a military coup a la Taitz.

    But… there are absolutely some aspects of the America that our founding fathers produced that I want to remain unchanged. One of them is the definition of “natural born citizen.” And the only definition of natural born citizen that existed at the framing of the US Constitution was this: born on American soil.

  • 83
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 10:16

    Da verg:

    jim corsi went to kenya
    found the birth certificate

    Corsi denies that.

    Corsi told WND that despite contacts in government offices, the help of others and even the offer of financial reward, the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa would not confirm Obama’s birth there nor provide access to records.

    “When I was there, I tried to get records from that hospital, but I couldn’t do it,” Corsi said. “The hospital either had no records or wouldn’t release them.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102554

  • 84
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 10:19

    da verg says:

    also, your copy of the constitution does not say after every state.

    read it

    for once

    My copy of the Constitution does not say there should be any objections at all.

    Read it.

    For once.

  • 85
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 10:26

    HistorianDude,

    The truth of the matter is — and as the current material from your oft-quoted source, the State Department, clearly says — the definition for natural born citizen with respect to the Constitution’s requirements for presidential eligibility has never been definitively defined by any Court.

    This means that your opinion is of no better or lesser value than anyone else’s opinion, and such opinions remain just that, until such time as a Court renders what would then be an official opinion.

    As I’ve maintained from the beginning, I don’t know if the President is truly eligible or not. However, I don’t think that asking for the Court to provide a “definitive” opinion is anywhere near being beyond the pale. While many petitioners may have inappropriately asked, say, the Supreme Court to answer the question, it is still very much of a legitimate question to ask.

    This is why it equally fascinates me that individuals such as yourself rail against the question to the nth degree when really it’s an issue of definition. Then again, I suppose asking the Court to define exactly when life begins would be an equally controversial question to ask as well; this seems to be the best analogy I can come up with to explain the apparent outrage against asking for a definition.

    -Phil

  • 86
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 10:46

    Bob Strauss:

    HD, all they presented was a photoshopped, forgery, and called it a birth certificate, for the purpose, of defrauding the voters.

    This is not true.

    1. It is time to simply accept that you are never going to personally hold in your hands a certified paper copy of Obama’s birth certificate. It would be goofy to expect otherwise. “The voters” will always have to depend on images (internet or print) of such documents because there is no way 150 million birth certificates are going to be issued and distributed to voters.

    In other words… you are always going to have to ultimately depend on somebody else’s word for whether or not the document is authentic. The vast majority of voters understand and accept this simple reality.

    If you are unhappy with that, then you have a powerful and effective response that does not require you to try and circumvent the Constitution with a judicial coup de’tat. This would be to withhold your vote.

    2. They released to multiple media sources the scanned image of Obama’s birth certificate for widespread publication. They also made the paper copy available at their Chicago headquarters for representatives of the media to personally inspect. At least one organization took them up on that offer.

    3. Every single person who has inspected the paper document has declared it authentic.

    4. There is not a single identifiable expert in documents, digital images or the forgery of either who has gone on record to declare the COLB a “photoshopped forgery.” Two anonymous bloggers “TechDude” and “Polarik” are the only individuals who have made such a claim and who pretend to be experts. There is no good reason (especially after reviewing their “work”) to suspect that either of them are qualified to even comment.

    5. Sandra Lines has never declared the COLB a forgery. She is explicit that such a determination cannot be made from an internet image, thus directly contradicting “Polarik” and “TechDude.”

    6. Dr. Neil Krawetz (a real expert with a real name and a real PhD) has gone on record that the on-line image shows no signs of digital forgery. He has also debunked both “TechDude’s” and “Polarik’s” claims and competence.

    7. The long published standards of the US State Department are explicit that the COLB is absolute legal proof of American citizenship at birth.

    8. The US State Department is on record under oath that the COLB released by Obama is proof of his status as a natural born American citizen.

    This is the current state of the situation. This has been (with the exception of point #8) the state of the situation for most of the last year. Birthers have made no more progress on finding evidence for their position than they have getting a court case heard or getting any official to act on their miscellaneous “dossiers” and “presentments.”

  • 87
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 10:54

    Phil:

    The truth of the matter is — and as the current material from your oft-quoted source, the State Department, clearly says — the definition for natural born citizen with respect to the Constitution’s requirements for presidential eligibility has never been definitively defined by any Court.

    Most Constitutional terms have never been “definitively defined” by any court. This is merely an extension of the fact that the Constitution does not define terms for which there was, at the time of the framing, no controversy.

    At the time of the framing, there existed a single definition for “natural born citizen.” It is the definition found in British Common Law: birth on national soil. There was no other.

    This means that your opinion is of no better or lesser value than anyone else’s opinion, and such opinions remain just that, until such time as a Court renders what would then be an official opinion.

    Certainly you know better. If one person’s opinion was of no better or lesser value than anybody else’s the world would come to a screeching halt. It is clear from both history and common sense that some opinions are better than others. We even recognize that in court with the concept of “expert witnesses.”

    My paper trail speaks for itself. More importantly the paper trails of both the Birthers and Obots speak for themselves. Birther “opinions” have not worn well… most of them proving to be explicitly false.

  • 88
    da verg
    June 30th, 2009 10:56

    Historian dude
    from your own post

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections

    june 29th, 12 22 am

    and jim corsi
    was tortured, he did find the documents,
    he had a news conference scheduled , they threatened his life
    if he said otherwise. He found them elsewhere, not at the hospitol. He’s saving his own life.

    believe it

    you have no credibility, your prior post is contradicted.

  • 89
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 11:02

    HistorianDude,

    2. They released to multiple media sources the scanned image of Obama’s birth certificate for widespread publication. They also made the paper copy available at their Chicago headquarters for representatives of the media to personally inspect. At least one organization took them up on that offer.

    Can it be certified that Hawaiian officials confirmed that a certification of live birth was requested and duly sent to said requester?

    3. Every single person who has inspected the paper document has declared it authentic.

    Can you cite the sources for this? Are there affidavits stating such a claim?

    4. There is not a single identifiable expert in documents, digital images or the forgery of either who has gone on record to declare the COLB a “photoshopped forgery.” Two anonymous bloggers “TechDude” and “Polarik” are the only individuals who have made such a claim and who pretend to be experts. There is no good reason (especially after reviewing their “work”) to suspect that either of them are qualified to even comment.

    Regardless of whether or not an anonymous person (such as myself) is “qualified” to hold an opinion, has anyone gone on record (i.e.: produced an affidavit) by which they legally state anything differently?

    5. Sandra Lines has never declared the COLB a forgery. She is explicit that such a determination cannot be made from an internet image, thus directly contradicting “Polarik” and “TechDude.”

    Here is what she actually said:

    2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.

    …and:

    4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all.

    What she is saying is that the certification cannot be relied upon with absolute certainty in determining any derived issue asking to be answered via the document.

    6. Dr. Neil Krawetz (a real expert with a real name and a real PhD) has gone on record that the on-line image shows no signs of digital forgery. He has also debunked both “TechDude’s” and “Polarik’s” claims and competence.

    Assuming this is true, is Dr. Krawetz willing to sign an affidavit stating such?

    7. The long published standards of the US State Department are explicit that the COLB is absolute legal proof of American citizenship at birth.

    We’re not talking about American citizenship.

    8. The US State Department is on record under oath that the COLB released by Obama is proof of his status as a natural born American citizen.

    Yet, the State Department is also on record as stating the following:

    Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
    (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
    a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    Once again, we’re at an impasse of one person’s opinion versus another.

    -Phil

  • 90
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 11:08

    HistorianDude,

    If one person’s opinion was of no better or lesser value than anybody else’s the world would come to a screeching halt. It is clear from both history and common sense that some opinions are better than others. We even recognize that in court with the concept of “expert witnesses.”

    Please stay within the context of the current thread. When I say that one’s opinion is no better or worse than another’s, perhaps you’re not understanding that I’m speaking of such media as the blogosphere, not the Court.

    -Phil

  • 91
    Civis naturaliter natus
    June 30th, 2009 11:59

    HD,

    Careful now: you keep calling a COLB and BC: this is a sign that you are beginning to believe that your interpretation of the law (which has been amply proved by Monique to be false) is the law.

    I recommend a break from blogging….

  • 92
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 12:02

    Jenny:

    The current people in our White House and those who administrate are not required to follow our Constitution because themselves do not have standing to do so.

    “Standing” has nothing to do with actions by the executive or legislative branches. It is a standard for determining jurisdiction in civil judicial matters.

  • 93
    Appy American
    June 30th, 2009 12:10

    HD,
    I must say that I admire the tenacity of you and the other followers of your line of thinking on this website. In your 10:10 posting you make the statement that there is no evidence whatsoever of this, that and the other about BHO concerning birth certificates, passports, etc. Finally there is something on which we can agree. This is the point of what people who want to see the truth wish to accomplish. Your whole premise of his eligibility is based on the idea that because Hawaii says that A=B, therefore A=B. Will you grant me that Hawaiian long form birth certificates are in fact different than the COLB put on the internet in amounts of information available? And will you also grant me that no one has seen his actual birth certificate, except certain Hawaiian officials, including yourself? Will you also grant me that no one has access to his passport information or school records from elementery on up to his Harvard and Columbia days? Are you seeing a pattern here?
    I believe it was you that I asked a question of a while back. That question was “would you bet your life that everything you all believe to be true, is in fact true” if all this information that unbelievers want to see was to be made available after you have made the bet. I believe your response was, if in fact it was you, NO. That would be stupid or something along that same thought line. And I agree with you in that thought process. I would not base my life on the statements of anybody being true, no matter who was making them. While the issue here is certainly not life threatening, yet, me being one of those RWEs and all, taking as fact what somebody says without actual PROOF is in my opinion, stupid. These issues could be laid to rest if BHO would release his information. It’s as simple as that, and hiding behind this and that regulation to avoid releasing said information doesn’t give me reason to trust anybody who is in the position BHO is in. That and the fact that he is constantly revisiting his thinking on all the grand pronouncements that were made during the pre-election period.
    The bottom line here is in my opinion, release the records and get this argument settled once and for all. Why is that such a hard concept to agree on?

  • 94
    Joseph Maine
    June 30th, 2009 12:16

    It is amazing that there continue to be naysayers and objectors to the common sense transparency that our Commander in Chief should have. How does it hurt you, HistorianDude/Practical Kat/Earl, that the “President” should show us some sort of documents that demonstrate his person? I’m talking documents like his masters thesis, medical records in some fashion, even less sensitive birth records, college records, etc. If it doesn’t hurt you, then why do you insist on him not having to show? Why not just be transparent and truthful? You betray yourselves and your modus operandi.

    HD said,

    “2. They released to multiple media sources the scanned image of Obama’s birth certificate for widespread publication. They also made the paper copy available at their Chicago headquarters for representatives of the media to personally inspect. At least one organization took them up on that offer.

    Again, I show that you have lied in the past and now currently. People who have been following our dialogue know that you said that Fox News was there and that many other organizations were as well (beside Factcheck). Now you say that you only know Factcheck was there. Caught red handed!

    3. Every single person who has inspected the paper document has declared it authentic.

    Name one person who is official in any way, who knows anything about COLB’s from Hawai’i, who EVER verified that the document was authentic? Joe Miller? Jess Hennig? Using laypeople to verify, in closed quarters, a document no one else is able to see is as lame as me posting on a blog that it is not legit, not giving a reason. Neither Miller nor Hennig knows anything about official documents, nor did they give any reasonable explanation as to why they themselves could verify its authenticity in any way! And why should they be able to? They’ve nothing to do with declaring anything authentic. Plus, why didn’t they take a picture of the document’s front side, back side, and why all the strange angles? Who ever heard of taking a picture of a document on an angle? Did you notice that the seal on the front and back are not the same? Use your brain.

    The document released affirms NOTHING. Why? Not one official has spoken of its legitimacy (You know, the people that actually produce the document) and more importantly, if you post something on the internet, there is protocol and procedure (you know, the law that you guys keep talking about knowing so well) that guides veracity and authenticity. Did the Obama camp use this? Of course not. Why? People can make up their minds. One thing is certain though: Calling an image posted on the internet official or meaningful without proper relevant officials speaking on record about it is foolish and more importantly, unlawful.

  • 95
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 12:21

    Phil:

    Can it be certified that Hawaiian officials confirmed that a certification of live birth was requested and duly sent to said requester?

    Of course it can. But it would be redundant.

    Can you cite the sources for this? Are there affidavits stating such a claim?

    We have been, for months, providing you with those sources. In contrast, you have presented not a single source (affidavit or otherwise) that contradicts those facts.

    Regardless of whether or not an anonymous person (such as myself) is “qualified” to hold an opinion, has anyone gone on record (i.e.: produced an affidavit) by which they legally state anything differently?

    “Gone on the record” and “produced an affidavit” are not the same thing. Anonymous affidavits are not on the record, and going on the record does not require an affidavit.

    That said, yes. Both FactCheck and WND have gone on the record that the COLB is authentic and not a forgery.

    What she is saying is that the certification cannot be relied upon with absolute certainty in determining any derived issue asking to be answered via the document.

    She says nothing even vaguely similar. She says only that a digital image cannot be used to authenticate the “genuineness” a paper document. She makes no judgment whatsoever on the actual document (i.e. “the certification”) or what can be derived from it.

    Assuming this is true, is Dr. Krawetz willing to sign an affidavit stating such?

    Absolutely.

    We’re not talking about American citizenship.

    Yes, we are.

    Yet, the State Department is also on record as stating the following:

    Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
    (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

    a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    And that has nothing to do with this discussion, since that speaks of “birth abroad,” and in their statement under oath they have declared officially that Obama was not born abroad.

    Not one of your best dodges.

    Once again, we’re at an impasse of one person’s opinion versus another.

    Not even close. We have actual experts and legal authorities vs. anonymous bloggers. Certainly you can tell the difference even as you refuse to admit it.

  • 96
    brygenon
    June 30th, 2009 12:24

    I wrote:

    The 2004 electoral vote count was very much the same,

    I stand corrected on that.

  • 97
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 12:25

    Phil:

    Please stay within the context of the current thread. When I say that one’s opinion is no better or worse than another’s, perhaps you’re not understanding that I’m speaking of such media as the blogosphere, not the Court.

    It is no more true in the blogosphere than it is in a court of law.

    If I can back up my “opinions” with evidence and you cannot, then my opinion is better than yours… even in the blogosphere. If I can defend it with reason and you cannot, then my opinion is better than yours… even in the blogosphere. If I have been consistently correct in my predictions regarding outcomes and you have not, then my opinion is better than yours… even in the blogosphere.

    It’s not complicated, Phil. Although I know that, for Birthers, it is very, very inconvenient.

  • 98
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 12:30

    Da verg:

    and jim corsi
    was tortured, he did find the documents,
    he had a news conference scheduled , they threatened his life
    if he said otherwise. He found them elsewhere, not at the hospitol. He’s saving his own life.

    Jim Corsi was never tortured. The only documents he “found” were two unrelated e-mails. The purpose of his press conference had nothing to do with Obama’s birth, but was to accuse the Kenyan Prime Minister Odinga of inciting racial violence. He never found and has never pretended to have found any birth certificate.

    Please…. Get your facts straight.

  • 99
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 12:32

    da verg:

    Historian dude
    from your own post

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections

    june 29th, 12 22 am

    That’s not the Constitution.

  • 100
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 12:40

    HistorianDude,

    Can it be certified that Hawaiian officials confirmed that a certification of live birth was requested and duly sent to said requester?

    Of course it can. But it would be redundant.

    Then let’s stick with this. Cite the source for the transaction on the certification of live birth. Surely this very simple fact can be verified.

    -Phil

  • 101
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 12:44

    HistorianDude,

    It is no more true in the blogosphere than it is in a court of law.

    If I can back up my “opinions” with evidence and you cannot, then my opinion is better than yours… even in the blogosphere. If I can defend it with reason and you cannot, then my opinion is better than yours… even in the blogosphere. If I have been consistently correct in my predictions regarding outcomes and you have not, then my opinion is better than yours… even in the blogosphere.

    It’s not complicated, Phil. Although I know that, for Birthers, it is very, very inconvenient.

    Here’s the difference. You’re not willing to see anything from a perspective different than yours RE: eligibility, whereas I’ve continued to ask legitimate, straightforward questions in an effort to get to the truth.

    What you may not fully understand about me, per se, is that when I say that I don’t know if the President is eligible to hold the presidency, that means that there is a possibility that he is eligible. That means that I could reasonably conclude, based on as-of-yet unseen, objective evidence, that he would be, at that time, eligible for the presidency. In contradistinction, I don’t think you’d explicitly admit that Mr. Obama were ineligible if the evidence could be conclusively shown to be the opposite.

    -Phil

  • 102
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 12:52

    The following order has just been entered in the Kirchner v. Obama Docket:

    Dear Mr. Apuzzo:

    The Court recently learned that it has been erroneously reported on certain internet web sites that the court accepts correspondence and faxes from non-parties that will become part of the court’s file. As a result the court has received numerous letters and faxes from non-parties. Although the court does not know the source of the erroneous reports, you are nevertheless directed to advise your clients that the court does not accept correspondence or faxes from non-parties for filing in the court’s file. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented”). An Order will be entered striking the nonconforming letters from the court’s docket.

    Very truly yours,
    s/Joel Schneider
    JOEL SCHNEIDER
    United States Magistrate Judge

  • 103
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 12:54

    HistorianDude,

    Thanks for the update. I’ll be similarly updating this posting.

    -Phil

  • 104
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 12:56

    Phil:

    Here’s the difference. You’re not willing to see anything from a perspective different than yours RE: eligibility, whereas I’ve continued to ask legitimate, straightforward questions in an effort to get to the truth.

    Nothing in that statement is true. I have no problem seeing things from your perspective. I cannot be faulted for then using my critical judgment supported by the evidence for then rejecting that perspective as false.

    Now… here’s the real difference.

    My perspective is supported by the evidence. Yours is not.

  • 105
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 12:59

    Phil:

    Then let’s stick with this. Cite the source for the transaction on the certification of live birth. Surely this very simple fact can be verified.

    Again, Phil. I’m sure that this simple fact can be verified. Since it is 1) redundant and 2) irrlevant, I do not particulalry care about it.

    if you want it verified, why have you not tried to do so?

  • 106
    HistorianDude
    June 30th, 2009 13:03

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/16963408/29-20090629-ORDER-Directing-the-Clerk-to-Strike-and-Remove-From-the-Docket-All-Letters-From-Nonparties-Including-but-Not-Limited-to-Doc-Nos-18-

    Judge’s order striking Nonparty letters from the Kerchner v. Obama Docket

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/16963406/28-20090629-ORDER-Directing-Kerchner-to-Advise-Clients-Re-Letters

    Judge’s letter to Appuzzo on the issue of Nonparty letters.

  • 107
    brygenon
    June 30th, 2009 13:05

    Appy American wrote,

    Your whole premise of his eligibility is based on the idea that because Hawaii says that A=B, therefore A=B.

    “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. — U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1

    Will you grant me that Hawaiian long form birth certificates are in fact different than the COLB put on the internet in amounts of information available? And will you also grant me that no one has seen his actual birth certificate, except certain Hawaiian officials, including yourself?

    “The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii“. http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

    “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

  • 108
    da verg
    June 30th, 2009 13:40

    historian dude says corsi was not tortured

    where you there??

    he was abducted, against his will,

    he was deprived of food and sleep, he came back
    deathly ill and nearly died.

    is waterboarding torture
    ?

    and kidnapping, threatened with armed weapons, bullied, deprived of
    food/water/sleep not?

    you libs can’t have it BOTH ways.

    US code is under the Constitution, the Constitution is top level document.
    doh
    –once again your post decimated. You just don’t get it.

  • 109
    da verg
    June 30th, 2009 13:47

    this whole action reeks of robots and attempt to discredit the plaintiff attorney as yet again another attempt to circumvent the facts, provide smoke and mirrors, and obstruct justice.

    mark my words, the judge will use this obot BS tactic against the plaintiffs in their attempt to preserve the constitutional rights of ALL AMERICANS agains this BS that illegally sits in the White House.

    Their is not a single iota of evidence that says that OBAMA is a natural borne citizen, by OBAMA the usurper’s own words, he incriminates himself. He delays, obstructs justice, and hides behind vague technicalities. None of which will be upheld in the long rum because the truth of the matter will be revealed in due time. When that comes his whole presidency will be voided. The people that voted for him will realize they have been duped or put under media spell. Either way, the truth is becoming known. A majority of real , legal, AMericans want the law followed.

    Relate to you a comment from a LIBERAL neighbor of mine ” I didn’t know he wasn’t natural borne citizen, if he isn’t he must be removed according to the law”. Yep that is what he said. And he’s a liberal.

    bye bye OBAMA your time will come, you can’t run and hide anymore the fences are closing in on you.

  • 110
    brygenon
    June 30th, 2009 13:55

    Joseph Maine wrote:

    How does it hurt you, HistorianDude/Practical Kat/Earl, that the “President” should show us some sort of documents that demonstrate his person? I’m talking documents like his masters thesis, medical records in some fashion, even less sensitive birth records, college records, etc. If it doesn’t hurt you, then why do you insist on him not having to show? Why not just be transparent and truthful?

    Though you left me off your obots list (I’m hurt), I’ll answer: Presidents have routinely withheld such records, and Obama is the only one who made public his birth certificate. He’s met all legal requirements and what to disclose beyond that is his choice. If you decide it’s not enough, you might choose not to vote for him, but beyond that you don’t get to impose special rules.

    “Transparency” refers to the workings of government, not to personal records.

    This site is from a faction that wants to treat this particular president vastly differently from all his predecessors. It is important that they fail, because this is America and we don’t do that.

  • 111
    Joseph Maine
    June 30th, 2009 14:41

    Brygenon,

    How have we treated this candidate vastly different than any other? No candidate in the modern era admittedly was born as subject to British or foreign rule. Why can’t you be at least honest and say that Congress themselves treated Obama vastly different, or the media treated him vastly different, by not even inquiring into his background (yet they did McCain’s???). Your argument doesn’t work.

    What do you know about this man? We know nothing of his life before age 22, and very little even afterwards! All we are asking for are reasonable, and in many cases, NON private (birth certificate) records.

    No one has answered why, instead of paying Bob Bauer upwards of 800k in legal defense costs, he doesn’t just send the attorney to Hawaii and have them verify the COLB in front of a camera or audience. I would guess this would cost 5k and would shut down ANY sort of reasonable doubt. Phil himself when I asked him said this would suffice and he would walk away.

    This example is an easy way to not release ANY more than is listed on the COLB, and to prove once and for all that it is legit.

    Yet he won’t do it. Instead, guys like you like to appeal to Joe Miller and Jess Hennig to take weird angle pictures of a supposed document they’ll let NO ONE else see?

    In every way Obama has handled this poorly, which is why it is more likely and than anything he has handled it criminally. Mr. Gibbs, why don’t you give a copy of even the COLB to Mr. Kinsolving if you are so transparent (“we posted it on the internet”) and say, here you go, do what you want with it, it’s legit!

    You and I BOTH know why, Brygenon. You are defending an obfuscator, and by denying this you show what doesn’t matter to you, indeed just like Obama: integrity.

  • 112
    Joan
    June 30th, 2009 14:57

    Wow, I just spent all morning writing a letter, compiling information to include from all the Electors and everyone I wrote on the eligibility issue and sent it express mail to the courthouse. I am truly disappointed that this information will now be disregarded and tossed.

  • 113
    Nick
    June 30th, 2009 15:11

    Presumably Judge Schneider himself must have made an error in procedure because he cited the letters from the court record in his order granting the defense’s motion for an extension.

    Anyway, notice that the order says they won’t be placed in the record; it doesn’t say the judges outright refuse to receive them. So I suppose people could still keep sending letters (faxes are probably not a good idea) on their own iniative urging the court to take the case on Constitutional grounds. Do you think that would hurt the case?

  • 114
    recuiting no BS OBAMA FIGHTERS:
    June 30th, 2009 15:13

    Phil, could you please,

    ask HistorianDude, what is his price to

    Switch to “Original Constitionalist’s ” Movement,

    He appears to not be as intelectually lazy as others!

  • 115
    brygenon
    June 30th, 2009 15:14

    HistorianDude wrote:

    Bob Strauss [wrote]:

    HD, all they presented was a photoshopped, forgery, and called it a birth certificate, for the purpose, of defrauding the voters.

    This is not true.

    1. It is time to [...]
    2. They released to multiple media sources [...]
    3. Every single person who has inspected [...]
    4. There is not a single identifiable expert [...]
    5. Sandra Lines has never declared [...]
    6. Dr. Neil Krawetz (a real expert [...]
    7. The long published standards [...]
    8. The US State Department is on record [...]

    Fine points, and I admire your work, but you neglected to link the FactCheck article: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Arguing is fun, but to convince any reasonable people who happen upon the discussion, there’s nothing else like real evidence.

  • 116
    KJ
    June 30th, 2009 15:17

    Phil,

    Please amend your lead in to say that public letters submitted outside of the court’s rules will the removed from docket or something like that.

    Your lead in implies that all public letters are to be removed from the docket.

    Thanks,
    KJ

  • 117
    Civis naturaliter natus
    June 30th, 2009 15:22

    Brygenon wrote:

    Presidents have routinely withheld such records, and Obama is the only one who made public his birth certificate.

    There you go lying again. He has never made public a Birth Certificate. Some supporters published on the internet a jpg image of what appears to be a COLB issued only recently with scant information. But no paper document was every submitted to public pervue at any time, let alone a Birth Certificate.

    And since you utter the same lie as HD and respond to posts directed to him, I am beginning to think you are HD, our resident Notre Dame High Alumni, Air Force Pilot, amateur historian, geneologist, dual American-Italian citizen…

    Don’t you think you are getting compulsive over this….I mean, why bother spending hours every day arguing with us over nit pick little details, when all Zero needs to do is admit he is a usurper and step down, leaving the presidency to Joe Biden. What about Joe Biden scares you so much? What is it about American or our Constitution that makes you hate them so much, and love an american hating Zero so much? You guys make me sick…

  • 118
    da verg
    June 30th, 2009 15:23

    “Transparency” refers to the workings of government, not to personal records.

    >>>>the government is made up of people !!! And people have records! That statement is nonsense!!

    Obama is the only one who made public his birth certificate.
    >>>ummmm no he didn’t, stop perpetuating this blatent an obvious lie. IT is no more than smoke and mirrors, obama the usurper favortie political tactic. If that’s a birth certificate then my driver’s license is a million dollar US bill.

    Get a clue, these posters don’t even know a REAL birth certificate from an obvious fraud. Anyone who
    voted based upon that fake he posted is surely
    living in another dimension. Which one, I haven’t
    a clue. But certainly not in any one resembling
    REALTY.

  • 119
    Jacqlyn Smith
    June 30th, 2009 15:23

    HistorianDude says:
    June 30, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Jacqlyn Smith:

    HD….Your writings to me and others only shows your arrogance much like the FRAUD you voted in for POTUS….much of what you write is opinion and speculation.

    The irony that flows like a torrent through the Birther movement is rarely displayed with greater clarity than in posts such as this. It is useful now and then to take a step back and recognize that the entire Birther narrative is speculation and nothing more. There does not exist any evidence whatsoever that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. There does not exist any evidence anywhere that Obama ever possessed an Indonesian passport. There does not exist any evidence anywhere that under 1961 Hawaiian law a single foreigner was ever issued a Hawaiian birth certificate saying he was born in Honolulu. There does not exist any evidence anywhere that the Birther complaint is true.

    It is pure, unadulterated speculation.

    This contrasts rather dramatically with Obama’s release of a State issued and certified birth certificate that meets to the letter the State Department standards for proof of citizenship at birth. That single document remains to this point completely unchallenged by a single piece of Birther evidence.

    So… I am well deserving of the chuckle I get each time such bluster is presented in the sorry attempt to cover up the complete vacuum that is the Birther tale.

    We have all the proof we need to show the IMPOSTER needs to go….we only need a judge or law official with some balls to take the case on and bring it to discovery….once this happens and the FRAUD must produce legal documents then you and your kind will be toast….the sooner the better for the good of our country and those who truly want a free and prosperous society!!!

    What “proof” is that? Exactly?

    I have (as you well know) been following this issue since August of last year. I am still waiting for the first piece of Birther evidence that Obama is not exactly who he has always claimed he is. You certainly provide none in this post. Phil certainly has provided none anywhere in this blog.

    As for “me and my kind” (whatever that means) being “toast,” I am compelled to ask. Is that supposed to be a threat?

    If you want a different America than the one our founding fathers produced then my suggestion to you is move to China or Russia where the tyrants want to socialize everything and rule with an iron fist…then let’s see who many of you LIBERAL hypocrites come running back to America!!

    If you want the same America that our founding fathers produced, then I hope you are not a black person. You would probably object to being a slave. If you want the same America that our founding fathers produced, then I hope you are not a woman. You would probably object to being a second class citizen denied the right to vote.

    There is a reason the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The first draft was not perfect.

    But of course, that is neither here nor there for the immediate discussion since Obama is absolutely Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS. The only persons consistently calling for a trashing of the Constitution are those Birthers who pretend that there is any authority on the planet other than Congress for removing a sitting President. It does not matter if you promote a judicial coup a la Berg, or a military coup a la Taitz.

    But… there are absolutely some aspects of the America that our founding fathers produced that I want to remain unchanged. One of them is the definition of “natural born citizen.” And the only definition of natural born citizen that existed at the framing of the US Constitution was this: born on American soil.

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

    HD—You continue to believe you are a know it all when your opinions are not worth the time it takes for we Patriots to read your BS…of course we have the proof….it is in the pudding when the legal documents are released….the problem is getting them released and then we shall see who knows what they are talking about….without a doubt it won’t be you!!!

  • 120
    NewEnglandPatriot
    June 30th, 2009 15:29

    The WorldNetDaily article does say that the information was obtained from Attorney Apuzzo, and I did hear Attorney Apuzzo say on Sunday evening that letters had been added to the file.

    I remember thinking that that is VERY unusual, as Apuzzo said, but I considered it to mean that the judge is reading the letters and possibly keeping them on file, but not IN the file. From his letter to Mario Apuzzo, he is explaining that he isn’t allowed to actually make letters from the public part of the file.

    He could still say, however, that he received thousands or perhaps millions of letters asking him to allow the case to go forward, without actually making the letters part of the suit. I believe people send letters to judges all the time.

    It is too bad that information was relayed inaccurately, but it is what Mario Apuzzo said. When I heard it, I thought it was a little too good to be true, and apparently it is.

    But it doesn’t mean that the judge(s) presiding over the case won’t remember that they were deluged with letters from the public. It would only support the fact that there is intense public interest and concern over the person in the White House being legitimate.

    And yes, my sister and mother, who are liberals, have both said to me that if Obama does not qualify as a “natural born citizen,” then he should be removed from office. There’s no way around it. Either we have a U.S. Constitution which gives us the rule of law or we don’t. And I would hate to think what life would be like here if we don’t.

  • 121
    earl
    June 30th, 2009 15:30

    Joseph Maine says:
    June 30, 2009 at 12:16 pm
    “How does it hurt you, HistorianDude/Practical Kat/Earl, that the “President” should show us some sort of documents that demonstrate his person? I’m talking documents like his masters thesis, medical records in some fashion, even less sensitive birth records, college records, etc. If it doesn’t hurt you, then why do you insist on him not having to show?”

    Everything you listed is irrelevant to his eligibility to be President. Read “Audacity of Hope”, Read ” Dreams from my Father”, watch any of the biographical specials about Pres Obama done by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FNC, BET, MSNBC and you will learn more about Pres Obama than you know about any other living President. Why do you insist on more identification from Pres Obama? Demanding that he provide any and all papers, records you ask to see hurts every American. Every American, including Pres Obama, is protected by privacy laws that protect medical, education, financial records. Inventing exceptions to those laws for one American threatens the rights of all Americans. In addition, you birthers hurt me by continually attempting to interfere with my legal vote on Nov 4, 2008. You had a chance to vote for your guy. He lost. Obama won. The FEC, the RNC, the entire Congress and the Electoral College agree. If you think you have a case, contact Congress and convince them to impeach Pres Obama. Work with the RNC or your party of choice to identify a candidate who can beat Obama in 2012 or wait until he term-limits out in 2016.

  • 122
    NewEnglandPatriot
    June 30th, 2009 15:32

    Another thing I just thought of: why did Judge Schneider order that the letters be “stricken” from the docket? That means that they WERE part of the docket or “in the file” originally. Otherwise, his order would not have been necessary. It would simply have been a misunderstanding on the part of Mario Apuzzo.

    I bet Attorney Pascal complained and then the judge had to issue the order to assure the other side that he’s being fair.

  • 123
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 15:37

    Nick,

    I’m not sure how the public commentary was “allowed” on the record, but I think the best advice is to watch how the case proceeds and go forward by spreading the fact that this is an ongoing, pending eligibility case.

    -Phil

  • 124
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 15:39

    KJ,

    Phil,

    Please amend your lead in to say that public letters submitted outside of the court’s rules will the removed from docket or something like that.

    Your lead in implies that all public letters are to be removed from the docket.

    Thanks,
    KJ

    As always, good eye and point.

    -Phil

  • 125
    earl
    June 30th, 2009 15:42

    MoniQue says:
    June 30, 2009 at 12:33 am
    “bullshevik”

    You cut the bullshevik. Barack Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu Hawaii on Aug 4 1961. He was born in the US = Natural born citizen. The COLB provided by Obama and all circumstantial evidence support that he was born in Hawaii. No birther has proven otherwise.
    As for trying to say the COLB is not the original. Hawaiian law says a certified COLB and the original ARE the same.
    HRS 338-13(b) “Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original”
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
    HRS 338 -19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies.
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0019.htm

  • 126
    earl
    June 30th, 2009 15:47

    MoniQue says:
    June 30, 2009 at 12:33 am
    Well, here we are AGAIN discussing usurper Obama, as if he were a REAL PRESIDENT,
    ————-
    He is. Pres Barack Hussein Obama is the legal President by the 12th amendment. The only way to remove him is by impeachment by the Congress, defeat in the 2012 election or term-limiting out in 2016. Get to work calling your Congressmen, work with your party to find someone who can beat Obama in 2012 or suck it up until Jan 20, 2017. Haven’t you folks realized you’re wasting your valuable time by trying to deny what is already done?

  • 127
    Phil
    June 30th, 2009 15:48

    NewEnglandPatriot,

    Another thing I just thought of: why did Judge Schneider order that the letters be “stricken” from the docket? That means that they WERE part of the docket or “in the file” originally. Otherwise, his order would not have been necessary. It would simply have been a misunderstanding on the part of Mario Apuzzo.

    I bet Attorney Pascal complained and then the judge had to issue the order to assure the other side that he’s being fair.

    The Judge’s actual verbiage was that certain letters from non-parties were “erroneously added to the court’s docket…”

    Makes one wonder what’s going on down at the Courthouse, huh?

    -Phil

  • 128
    Jacqlyn Smith
    June 30th, 2009 16:01

    earl says:
    June 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Joseph Maine says:
    June 30, 2009 at 12:16 pm
    “How does it hurt you, HistorianDude/Practical Kat/Earl, that the “President” should show us some sort of documents that demonstrate his person? I’m talking documents like his masters thesis, medical records in some fashion, even less sensitive birth records, college records, etc. If it doesn’t hurt you, then why do you insist on him not having to show?”

    Everything you listed is irrelevant to his eligibility to be President. Read “Audacity of Hope”, Read ” Dreams from my Father”, watch any of the biographical specials about Pres Obama done by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FNC, BET, MSNBC and you will learn more about Pres Obama than you know about any other living President. Why do you insist on more identification from Pres Obama? Demanding that he provide any and all papers, records you ask to see hurts every American. Every American, including Pres Obama, is protected by privacy laws that protect medical, education, financial records. Inventing exceptions to those laws for one American threatens the rights of all Americans. In addition, you birthers hurt me by continually attempting to interfere with my legal vote on Nov 4, 2008. You had a chance to vote for your guy. He lost. Obama won. The FEC, the RNC, the entire Congress and the Electoral College agree. If you think you have a case, contact Congress and convince them to impeach Pres Obama. Work with the RNC or your party of choice to identify a candidate who can beat Obama in 2012 or wait until he term-limits out in 2016.

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

    Earl—Everything you list here spews of propaganda…..quit watching those LIBERAL media stations and get the truth…only then you will know that you were duped if you voted for the FRAUD in the White House!!!

  • 129
    jtx
    June 30th, 2009 17:06

    To Phill (and others on this site):

    I suspect that the non-party communications are being removed (correctly so if you read FRCP #11 that the judge cited) after having being added through clerical error by the court administration team. I doubt the defense was involved in any way but that both judges became aware of the volume of interest in this from the public when their fax systems comnpletely bogged down – which was independently reported.

    There’s really nothing sinister about the exclusion – most courts will not accept documents of this sort (which I’m sure is why Mario noted this as being “very unusual”). Mario did not in any was encourage anyone to contact the court, but many of us were hopeful that our voices would be heard without resorting to further litigation.

    That aside, I note that some of the pro-O folks on the thread have not realized that the issue is not whether there was a birth or a BC or not (or where it occurred), but rather some of the facts in the case. Mr. Obama has himself said that his father was a Kenyan citizen (and never a US citizen) governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 – as was his son. The issue is, then, is such a person eligible under the laws of our country (the Constitution) to be President since he is clearly not a “natural born citizen” … despite the many hopeful beliefs to the contrary.

    And no one’s vote is being “invalidated” but rather the question is being asked (in effect) – “are the laws of the country to be upheld by the courts or not?” and, parenthetically, what is the definition of the term of art “natural born citizen”?? It will be an interesting and unprecedented case. The BC is merely a necessary but not sufficient document since under some valid and potential scenarios (which have yet to be determined by the facts) Mr. O is not even an American citizen.

    Clearly for all concerned (including Obama) this needs to be formally and rigorously decided. I can’t imagine that any of you would wish to have an illegal President, would you?

  • 130
    syc1959
    June 30th, 2009 17:19

    Phil;
    Sounds like they had too many letters written or faxed in to deny the public doesn’t care about this.

    Obama’s Lawyers caught in lies

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/obamas-lawyers-caught-in-lies/

    and

    Natural Born Confusion – Only for Obama supporters

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/natural-born-confusion-only-for-obama-supporters/

  • 131
    earl
    June 30th, 2009 18:47

    Here is the transcript of the January 6, 2005 Joint Session of Congress to Certify the Electoral College Vote.
    http://www.brainthink.com/view_article.php?articleid=2033
    When the announcements got to Ohio, Congresswoman Stephanie Jones of Ohio just stood up or came forward and presented a written objection signed by her and Sen Barbara Boxer. Both Houses retired to deliberate. Most of the transcript is the discussion of voting in Ohio. They eventually rejected the objection and returned to joint session.

    “The VICE PRESIDENT. Pursuant to the law, chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code, because the two Houses have not sustained the objection, the original certificate submitted by the State of Ohio will be counted as provided therein. ”

    They then proceed to announce the vote for the remainder of the states. And then announce the vote totals and end with:
    “This announcement shall be a sufficient declaration of the persons elected President and Vice President of the United States for the term beginning January 20, 2005, and shall be entered, together with a list of the votes, on the respective journals of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

    The purpose of the joint session having concluded, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1, 109th Congress, the Chair declares the joint session dissolved. ”

    The only part Cheney missed in 2009 was the last sentence. There was no call for objections at any time. Mrs Jones stepped forward to object when her state was called.

  • 132
    earl
    June 30th, 2009 18:57

    Here’s another tidbit on the procedure:
    http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/CRSElectoralVotes.pdf

    Here is a transcript of CNN report on the Jan 6 2001 count. Most is CNN anchor/interview narrative blah blah, but some of it is the actual joint session and at least when Arkansas is read, Al Gore called for objection:

    “FATTAH: And we the undersigned, duly elected and qualified presidential electors for the state of Arkansas, meeting in Little Rock on December 18th, as provided by law cast our ballot for vice president, and we hereby certify that we cast our separate ballots for vice president for Dick Cheney. Signed by the pertinent electors and duly attested.

    Mr. President the certificate of the electoral vote of state of Arkansas seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom, that George W. Bush of the state of Texas receives six votes for president and Dick Cheney of the state of Wyoming receives six votes for vice president.

    GORE: Is there objection? Hearing none, the chair now hands to the gentleman from California and the other tellers the certificate of the electors for president… “

  • 133
    earl
    June 30th, 2009 18:59

    Preview is my friend. Here is the CNN transcript from Jan 6 2001 with bits of the actual joint session.
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.01.html

  • 134
    Nick
    June 30th, 2009 19:11

    Well, the actual order (document no. 29) does say that the clerk is instructed to remove ALL letters from non-parties, period.

    But as has been pointed out, obviously the Judge knew those letters were there because he directly cited them in a previous order, document no. 26. See page 2 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/16253400/

    I concur that this probably happened because the DOJ complained. But the very fact that this order came about shows that the court is aware that the people are watching this case and demand that the Constitution be upheld.

  • 135
    brygenon
    June 30th, 2009 20:05

    C.N. natus says:

    Brygenon wrote:

    Presidents have routinely withheld such records, and Obama is the only one who made public his birth certificate.

    There you go lying again. He has never made public a Birth Certificate. Some supporters published on the internet a jpg image of what appears to be a COLB issued only recently with scant information. But no paper document was every submitted to public pervue at any time, let alone a Birth Certificate.

    It’s a myth that he only made a digital image available. He offered the actual document for reports to inspect and photograph: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Contrary to what some birthers reported, the form Obama showed is “the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii”: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

  • 136
    earl
    June 30th, 2009 21:15

    Jacqlyn Smith says:
    June 30, 2009 at 3:23 pm
    “of course we have the proof….it is in the pudding when the legal documents are released….the problem is getting them released”

    Correction: You THINK you MIGHT find the proof in documents you don’t even know exist. Here’s the dilemma you face – in order for any case to proceed, you must have a sufficient cause of action. You have to have enough proof at the outset to support a finding in your favor. No lawsuit proceeds with no evidence. It’s the same old birther argument “Honest Judge, we could prove our case if you’d just help us discover the proof.” The US justice system doesn’t work that way.

  • 137
    brygenon
    June 30th, 2009 21:43

    Joseph Maine says:

    How have we treated this candidate vastly different than any other?

    Exactly as I explained here a number of times, of course.

    No candidate in the modern era admittedly was born as subject to British or foreign rule.

    Yes, Obama was quite forthcoming.

    Why can’t you be at least honest and say that Congress themselves treated Obama vastly different, or the media treated him vastly different, by not even inquiring into his background (yet they did McCain’s???). Your argument doesn’t work.

    Contrary to your reporting, the media did investigate Obama. The resolution on McCain involved an investigation of legal issues, not of the man’s biography.

    What do you know about this man? We know nothing of his life before age 22, and very little even afterwards!

    Being ignorant is your *choice*. It’s not a problem for Obama.

    All we are asking for are reasonable, and in many cases, NON private (birth certificate) records.

    Granted long ago: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Where’s Bill Clinton’s birth certificate? Ronald Reagan’s?

    No one has answered why, instead of paying Bob Bauer upwards of 800k in legal defense costs,

    That’s been answered many times: the birthers fabricate the costs.

    he doesn’t just send the attorney to Hawaii and have them verify the COLB in front of a camera or audience. I would guess this would cost 5k and would shut down ANY sort of reasonable doubt. Phil himself when I asked him said this would suffice and he would walk away.

    Birthers say that no matter how well proven are the facts on Obama’s COLB they would still say he’s not eligible, and we know Phil to be a liar. This is a conspiracy theory and there’s no evidence you cannot discount.

  • 138
    Mick
    June 30th, 2009 23:20

    No further documentation or Proof is needed. Obama admits to being a British Citizen at Birth and says he is a “Native Citizen” on “Fight the Smears” ( a Constitutional Lecturer certainly knows that the correct term is Natural Born Citizen, so obviously he is trying to not outright lie). NO BC IS NECESSARY to prove that Obama is not a NBC. It is simply a legal question.

  • 139
    brygenon
    July 1st, 2009 01:35

    Phil wrote:

    KJ [wrote:],

    Please amend your lead in to say that public letters submitted outside of the court’s rules will the removed from docket or something like that.

    Your lead in implies that all public letters are to be removed from the docket.

    As always, good eye and point.

    Then what do you mean by “public”? I had thought this referred to members of the general public who are not parties to the suit, and that’s what made the letters non-conforming.

  • 140
    Civis naturaliter natus
    July 1st, 2009 06:37

    Someone at the court is reading the letters received and is impressed.

    The addition of the letters shows that not all those who work in the court, are comprimised, but that someone is beginning to think about the issues.

    It may also mean that the clerk who listed them, knows that the Judge is going to be unfavorable to the decision to be made and wants some record to the contrary to appear on the docekt for the sake of history…

  • 141
    Phil
    July 1st, 2009 08:49

    earl,

    HRS 338-13(b) “Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original”
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm

    Again, nobody doubts that if the COLB is legitimate that it would contain the same info as the original birth certificate. Nevertheless, the original contains more verifiable information than the short form. And, of course, this still raises the question of whether a birth certificate is “substantial” enough to determine eligibility. After all, at birth, Mr. Obama was a British citizen.

    -Phil

  • 142
    HistorianDude
    July 1st, 2009 09:51

    da Verg:

    historian dude says corsi was not tortured

    where you there??

    he was abducted, against his will,

    he was deprived of food and sleep, he came back
    deathly ill and nearly died.

    No need to be there. I read his accounts of what happened.

    He was arrested. If you consider being arrested the same thing as being “abducted and held against his will,” then you have just rendered essentially all law enforcement illegitimate. I did not suspect you for an anarchist.

    As far as I can tell, he has never claimed to have been tortured.

  • 143
    bob strauss
    July 1st, 2009 10:22

    The collusion, between the USA/Obama, and the Kenyan government, to keep hidden, the truth, about Obama, should be investigated immediately. Obama’s Kenyan records are sealed, they have grandma, fenced in, with chain link fence, to go along with the gag order, on the family, to prevent the truth from coming out. This fraud, is global, in proportion, and the Kenyan government, is involved in the cover up, to protect Obama. This is a major, international, conspiracy, when foreign governments aid in the usurpation of the Presidency of the USA.

  • 144
    earl
    July 1st, 2009 10:30

    Phil says:
    July 1, 2009 at 8:49 am
    ” After all, at birth, Mr. Obama was a British citizen.”

    Birther mistake: trying to imply Pres Obama wasn’t a citizen of the US when he was born. At birth, Pres Obama was a dual citizen of the US and Britain, not exclusively a British citizen. Pres Obama never acted on his British-then-Kenyan citizenship rights when he attained age of 21, so it’s as if it never existed. There are millions of US citizens who are born with similar dual citizenships. Are you trying to say that all these millions are ineligible to be President? Huge Birther mistake: trying to narrow the definition of natural born citizen sufficiently to exclude large segments of the US population and make it an exclusive club. Who’s left who fits your definition? Big Mistake.

    “Nevertheless, the original contains more verifiable information than the short form.”
    The laws of the state of Hawaii tell you that there is nothing on the original that is important to know regarding the facts of a person’s birth that isn’t included on the COLB. Insisting you might discern some “smoking gun” about Pres Obama’s eligibility from the original is a flight of fancy.

  • 145
    earl
    July 1st, 2009 10:36

    Civis naturaliter natus says:
    July 1, 2009 at 6:37 am
    “Someone at the court is reading the letters received and is impressed.”

    I would submit you are wishful thinking. More likely it was a mistake by an inexperienced clerk. Don’t let that discourage you from writing letters. It’s your right. But don’t deceive yourself into thinking that our legal process is a popularity contest where the side who writes the most letters to the judge stands a better chance.

  • 146
    Civis naturaliter natus
    July 1st, 2009 11:59

    Brygenon,

    you wrote:

    Birthers say that no matter how well proven are the facts on Obama’s COLB they would still say he’s not eligible, and we know Phil to be a liar. This is a conspiracy theory and there’s no evidence you cannot discount.

    The “we know” quip give you away: you are about thought control, not facts or evidence.

    I have read this blog, nearly every post, since November, and I have never known Phil to intentionally misrepresent the truth. Whereas you have been caught in numerous lies: eg. saying a COLB is a BC, for example: though you never seem to address the problem that a COLB does not look like a BC or have the same name as a BC…little details that don’t trouble the mind of dictators…

  • 147
    Sharon 2
    July 1st, 2009 12:13

    “Contrary to your reporting, the media did investigate Obama. The resolution on McCain involved an investigation of legal issues, not of the man’s biography.” (Earl)

    It started with the examination of information contained on the long form of McCain’s birth certificate. The hospital was researched as well, as there was some question as to which one he was born in. Then, came the legal question (different than Obama’s) which was never answered by the court because of standing.

    So, the missing part of the investigation is the presentation to someone in the media of his long form.

  • 148
    Phil
    July 1st, 2009 12:42

    earl,

    Birther mistake: trying to imply Pres Obama wasn’t a citizen of the US when he was born. At birth, Pres Obama was a dual citizen of the US and Britain, not exclusively a British citizen. Pres Obama never acted on his British-then-Kenyan citizenship rights when he attained age of 21, so it’s as if it never existed.

    Please cite the constituional citation providing for a statute of limitations on the birth status of any individual with ambitions to become President.

    There are millions of US citizens who are born with similar dual citizenships. Are you trying to say that all these millions are ineligible to be President?

    I am saying that their respective situations leave room for doubt until such time as a Court renders a more complete definition of natural born citizenship.

    Huge Birther mistake: trying to narrow the definition of natural born citizen sufficiently to exclude large segments of the US population and make it an exclusive club. Who’s left who fits your definition?

    Until such time as it is amended, the Constitution already “narrows” down who’s eligible for the presidency. If you have a problem with exclusivity, then you have a problem with the Constitution.

    The laws of the state of Hawaii tell you that there is nothing on the original that is important to know regarding the facts of a person’s birth that isn’t included on the COLB.

    Cite the State law that has determined what is sufficient on any given birth certificate to determine presidential eligibility. Since no Hawaiian official has yet to speak on presidential eligibility, I’m not sure what makes your opinion of their opinion any better than what’s been said.

    -Phil

  • 149
    HistorianDude
    July 1st, 2009 13:20

    jtx:

    That aside, I note that some of the pro-O folks on the thread have not realized that the issue is not whether there was a birth or a BC or not (or where it occurred), but rather some of the facts in the case. Mr. Obama has himself said that his father was a Kenyan citizen (and never a US citizen) governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 – as was his son. The issue is, then, is such a person eligible under the laws of our country (the Constitution) to be President since he is clearly not a “natural born citizen” … despite the many hopeful beliefs to the contrary.

    Rest assured that the “pro-O folks” are intimately aware of the many and various stratagems assembled in the attempt to reverse the decision of the 2008 election. While it may be rhetorically useful for the “anti-O folks” to change the strategy when confronted with substantive rebuttal, it is not useful to the “pro-O” to facilitate that obfuscation by comprehensively listing all the eligibility arguments when the focus of a given post is on a single one.

    For example… I will not be launching into a defense of the authenticity of the COLB in this post, since you have changed the subject to the definition of NBC.

    The definitional argument can be happily referred to as the “flux capacitor” argument, since it proposes that our founding fathers were capable of time travel. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, there existed only a single definition of “natural born citizen,” and that is the definition found in British Common Law: birth on national soil. The proposed “de Vattel” alternative did not exist until ten years after the Constitution was written and adopted. So, it cannot possibly have had any influence on the meaning of the phrase as contained in Article II.

    The “dual citizenship” exclusion is even more absurd, since even time travel will not rescue it from a complete evidentiary vacuum. There does not exist, and there has never existed an American law that rendered natural born citizenship and dual citizenship mutually exclusive. The reason for this is quite straightforward.

    As a sovereign nation, no other nation’s citizenship laws can trump our own. Foreign nations can pile as many additional citizenships on anybody they like… but American citizenship is governed by American law exclusively.

    Your assertion that Obama’s (automatic, involuntary and probably for decades completely unknown) British citizenship means that “he is clearly not a “’natural born citizen’” is completely devoid of any legal or evidentiary support. Were it true then any hostile foreign government (think Chavez or Ahmedinijad) could invalidate every American for the presidency simply by granting their citizenship to all Americans involuntarily. This reductio ad absurdum establishes the simple fact that, as a sovereign nation, only the laws of the United States can control the citizenship status of Americans. If a person meets the standards of American law regarding American natural born citizenship, no other nation’s citizenship laws matter one whit.

    The simple fact is this, a persona can be born on American soil to two American citizens (thus meeting even the most stringent proposed definition of NBC), and still be a dual citizen. Millions of natural born American citizens are in exactly that boat and do not even realize it.

  • 150
    HistorianDude
    July 1st, 2009 13:35

    bob strauss says:

    The collusion, between the USA/Obama, and the Kenyan government, to keep hidden, the truth, about Obama, should be investigated immediately.

    So… what’s stopping you from investigating?

    Obama’s Kenyan records are sealed, they have grandma, fenced in, with chain link fence, to go along with the gag order, on the family, to prevent the truth from coming out.

    There is no evidence that there are any Kenyan Obama records at all let alone that any of them have been “sealed.”

    And Obama’s grandma is certainly not so “fenced in” or “gagged” that reporters (and self declared Anabaptist preachers) haven’t been able to routinely get interviews with her. In not one of them has she ever made a claim that is helpful to the Birther cause.

    This fraud, is global, in proportion, and the Kenyan government, is involved in the cover up, to protect Obama. This is a major, international, conspiracy, when foreign governments aid in the usurpation of the Presidency of the USA.

    That might be one explanation for the complete lack of evidence for Obama’s supposed Kenyan birth. But a simpler, more reasonable and less “fringe conspiratorial” explanation would be that there is nothing to cover up.

  • 151
    Polarik
    July 1st, 2009 14:08

    One point that we need to repeat, Phil, is that there is no COLB for OBama, there never was a COLB made for Obama, and that all questions regarding a nonexistent document are equally vacuous.

    According to Hawaii’s State Registrar, Alvin Onaka, Hawaii has never produced a COLB for Obama with a date-stamp of June 6, 2007 — a very, inconvenient truth, indeed.

    Why people are still talking about a computer image as a real document is totally beyond me. Nowhere in this country is a computer image proof of anything – EXCEPT as conclusive prove that a forgery has been committed: twice! There is no real COLB for Obama.

    The one and only “scan image” is bogus and people need to know that the nine Factcheck photos were made SOLELY to support the allegation that the “COLB” really exists.

    Well, it doesn’t exist and what people are looking at is a physical forgery, actually a mock-up job using the computer image used in the “Scan image” forgery, and that’s why it looks just like the original forgery trotted out in June 2008.

    That fact, in itself, is enough to sink this bogus creation. Not to mention the fact that there isn’t a real 2007 COLB that looks anything like it.

    As for as Obama’s true place of birth goes, we should know by now that if it really was Hawaii, then Hawaii’s DOH Director would have said so.

    She never did, nor has anyone else in the DOH confirmed his place of birth as Hawaii. I take that as a sure bet he’s not.

    Secondly, we have prima facie evidence of felony document fraud; several counts to be exact, and that means Obama is guily of crimes regardless of his citizenship status.

  • 152
    Simple Interest
    July 1st, 2009 14:11

    earl says:
    July 1, 2009 at 10:30 am

    It is quite clear that you have a demographical interest in this matter, whether political or otherwise. In defending the indefensible, your argument is flawed when you argue that a person with Dual Citizenship is a “natural born citizen”. I don’t have dual citizenship, and according to your logic, I am not a natural born citizen because both of us cannot be “natural born citizens” as required by the Constitution. Obama stated that he is a “native” American, meaning naturalized citizen. Your other argument is based on something less than speculation “Obama did not act on his Kenyan citizenship”. You don’t know that & until this issue came to the forefront, you probably did not know that he even had such citizenship status. Based on Obama’s statements, he is not even an American…..I believe him!!! He is a man of the World, meaning having citizenship in various countries. He is more than likely not an American citizen, based on the fact that his mother was an underaged child pregnant with a child of a foreign national…then after birth, he is adopted and naturalized in a country that did not recognized this dual citizenship. Lastly, Obama’s sister is in the same status that he is. Although his sister was born in Indonesia to a foreign national and a mother who had given up her U.S. citizenship, his mother registered her birth in Hawaii also. No Political Spin or Demographical Interests…Just the facts as told by Obama himself.

  • 153
    ramjet767
    July 1st, 2009 14:55

    Earle wrote:

    ” Huge Birther mistake: trying to narrow the definition of natural born citizen sufficiently to exclude large segments of the US population and make it an exclusive club. Who’s left who fits your definition?

    Until such time as it is amended, the Constitution already “narrows” down who’s eligible for the presidency. If you have a problem with exclusivity, then you have a problem with the Constitution.”

    Wrong! Misleading and mis-informating people again as you O-Bots usually try to do. The group of citizens who are natural born citizens if the vast majority of U.S. citizens. It is not an exclusive club. NBC’s are the very nature of this country and of any country, as Vattel wrote. Natural born citizens are those born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country.

    As per M Publius Goat, natural born citizens are the three leaf clovers of America, not the four leaf clovers.
    http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

  • 154
    earl
    July 1st, 2009 14:57

    Phil says:
    July 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm
    “cite, cite, cite…”

    It’s the same as what all of us learned in 7th grade civics class:

    Born in the US = Natural Born Citizen.

    The only thing Obama needed to prove to the 50 states, 6 territories and DC is that he was born in Hawaii. He did so by having copies of his COLB available as proof. There is no law that requires him to prove his eligibility to you or any individual American. The 50 states, 6 territories, DC, the FEC, the DNC, the RNC, the Electoral College, the entire Congress are all satisfied that Obama provided enough proof of his eligibility. So were 70 million Americans who voted for him. It is unfortunate that it’s not enough for you, but the people of the United States who voted on Nov 4th, the Electoral College who voted on Dec 15 and the Congress who certified the vote on Jan 8th are the “controlling authority”. If that’s not enough for you, prove he’s not eligible to the Congress and convince them to impeach Pres Obama, or find someone who can get more votes in 2012, or celebrate when he term-limits out in 2016. The only way you’re going to prove he’s not eligible is to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and that avenue appears to be tapped out.

  • 155
    ramjet767
    July 1st, 2009 15:31

    Earl wrote:

    “Huge Birther mistake: trying to narrow the definition of natural born citizen sufficiently to exclude large segments of the US population and make it an exclusive club. Who’s left who fits your definition?”

    Wrong! Misleading and mis-informating people again as you O-Bots usually try to do. The group of citizens who are natural born citizens if the vast majority of U.S. citizens. It is not an exclusive club. NBC’s are the very nature of this country and of any country, as Vattel wrote. Natural born citizens are those born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country.

    As per M Publius Goat, natural born citizens are the three leaf clovers of America, not the four leaf clovers.
    http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

    Note to the editor. Please delete my immediately preceding prior post as I included a quotation the reply from Phil which was his answer to Earl. And his point is also a good point.

  • 156
    brygenon
    July 1st, 2009 19:07

    C.N. natus says:

    The “we know” quip give you away: you are about thought control, not facts or evidence.

    I have read this blog, nearly every post, since November, and I have never known Phil to intentionally misrepresent the truth. Whereas you have been caught in numerous lies: eg. saying a COLB is a BC, for example:

    Except contrary to your claim, I was all about the facts and evidence. I cited proof that it’s a birth certificate:

    “The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii”
    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

    Obama’s COLB, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html , conforms to State Department policy on what a “birth certificate” must include, in order “To establish a claim to U.S. citizenship by birth in the United States”: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

    Even WND has called it a birth certificate:

    “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.” — World Net Daily, August 23, 2008 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=73214

    though you never seem to address the problem that a COLB does not look like a BC or have the same name as a BC…little details that don’t trouble the mind of dictators…

    The premise that all birth certificates look basically the same is so obviously stupid that I had not thought it worth addressing.

  • 157
    brygenon
    July 1st, 2009 19:33

    Sharon 2 wrote:

    “Contrary to your reporting, the media did investigate Obama. The resolution on McCain involved an investigation of legal issues, not of the man’s biography.” (Earl)

    It started with the examination of information contained on the long form of McCain’s birth certificate.

    I can find where Senators got legal opinions on this, but nothing about seeing McCain’s birth certificate. Where did you get this information?

  • 158
    Phil
    July 1st, 2009 22:06

    earl,

    While I realize that you have a serious problem with citing your conclusions, my blog exists for the purposes of getting to the truth of certain matters; presently, one of those matters is the question of presidential eligibility.

    You see, it may be acceptable to you to accept things because someone told you so or based on derived conclusions that have no factual basis at all. However, for me, I prefer to get as much objectively verifiable evidence as possible; hence my multiple requests for law citations.

    If anyone is going to get to the bottom of any kind of issue, they must begin, process and conclude said issues based on facts, not derived conclusions — especially when those conclusions are not directly supported by facts.

    -Phil

  • 159
    ramjet767
    July 1st, 2009 22:39

    Earl, Earl, Earl … wrong and spreading disinformation again.

    You said:

    “The only thing Obama needed to prove to the 50 states, 6 territories and DC is that he was born in Hawaii. He did so by having copies of his COLB available as proof.”

    WRONG AGAIN! All the electorate and public has seen is a digital image of a purported COLB document. Obama has not made copies of his COLB (which is not an original birth certificate anyway) to anyone other than to those in his campaign staff and a couple webmasters at FactCheck.org, which is affiliated with the Annenberg Foundation of which Obama once chaired. Hardly a neutral group. The infamous paper shown on the internet has never been submitted for any authenticity check to any independent expert document examiner or controlling legal authority. Do you think printing a paper copy of a digital image on the internet that some reporters have waved on the cameras on TV on MSNBC makes that printed copy of the purported COLB document any more legitimate. All we the people or any government official has ever had access to is a digital image on the internet and print outs of that digital image. Did you ever hear of PhotoShop?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsQJNTvlUE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZAbqgpoGQ&feature=related

    http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/04/why_obama_will_never_show_his_birth_certificate.thtml

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

  • 160
    earl
    July 1st, 2009 22:45

    Here is the law. I have cited this many times. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
    Every person who fits a category in the list of born citizens in USC 8, 1401 is a natural born citizen. The only people who don’t accept this are birthers and children who haven’t taken 7th grade civics. Everyone else in American knows it: the entire Congress, the Electoral College, the FEC, the RNC, the DNC, all the states and territories, the Dept of State, Dept of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA and the entire US military. Plus 70 million Americans who voted for Pres Obama and 99% of the 60 million who voted for McCain. There is no fact, law or court case opinion that supports your position that Pres Obama is not eligible. Even your eligibility bill sponsors know that all that is needed is a birth certificate showing citizenship at birth.

  • 161
    Civis naturaliter natus
    July 1st, 2009 22:55

    earl says:

    July 1, 2009 at 2:57 pm
    Phil says:

    July 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm
    “cite, cite, cite…”

    It’s the same as what all of us learned in 7th grade civics class:

    Born in the US = Natural Born Citizen.

    The only thing Obama needed to prove to the 50 states, 6 territories and DC is that he was born in Hawaii. He did so by having copies of his COLB available as proof. There is no law that requires him to prove his eligibility to you or any individual American. The 50 states, 6 territories, DC, the FEC, the DNC, the RNC, the Electoral College, the entire Congress are all satisfied that Obama provided enough proof of his eligibility. So were 70 million Americans who voted for him. It is unfortunate that it’s not enough for you, but the people of the United States who voted on Nov 4th, the Electoral College who voted on Dec 15 and the Congress who certified the vote on Jan 8th are the “controlling authority”. If that’s not enough for you, prove he’s not eligible to the Congress and convince them to impeach Pres Obama, or find someone who can get more votes in 2012, or celebrate when he term-limits out in 2016. The only way you’re going to prove he’s not eligible is to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and that avenue appears to be tapped out.

    Earl,

    1)You did not cite. Shame on you!

    2)What textbook did your civics class use. Mine civics teacher said that a Natural Born Citizen must have two citizen parents and be born on US Soil. But he did not give me a source when I asked him.

    3) Your final argument is unworthy of your leader, O, because (using that argument, but changing 1 fact): we all know that if the entire american people elect a dog for president, that does not make the dog eligible…

    And no, I am not equating blacks with dogs, I personally think there are many fine black men and women who are NBCs and would be find presidents, race means nothing to me…

  • 162
    earl
    July 1st, 2009 22:59

    Simple Interest says:
    July 1, 2009 at 2:11 pm
    earl says:
    July 1, 2009 at 10:30 am

    “It is quite clear that you have a demographical interest in this matter, whether political or otherwise. ”
    - I am troubled that birthers insist on more identification from Pres Obama than any other President in history. Why is that?
    “your argument is flawed when you argue that a person with Dual Citizenship is a “natural born citizen”. I don’t have dual citizenship, and according to your logic, I am not a natural born citizen because both of us cannot be “natural born citizens” as required by the Constitution.”
    - Um, HUH? That statement makes no sense.
    “Obama stated that he is a “native” American, meaning naturalized citizen.”
    - Ridiculous. Native does not mean naturalized. Websters: Native means born in a particular place or country. When Obama said he was a native American he was saying he was born in America.
    “Obama did not act on his Kenyan citizenship”. You don’t know that & until this issue came to the forefront, you probably did not know that he even had such citizenship status.”
    - We do know. He never acted on it. I read his book before he was a candidate, I read the born with dual citizenship part.
    “Based on Obama’s statements, he is not even an American…..I believe him!!! He is a man of the World, meaning having citizenship in various countries. He is more than likely not an American citizen, based on the fact that his mother was an underaged child pregnant with a child of a foreign national…then after birth, he is adopted and naturalized in a country that did not recognized this dual citizenship.
    - Utter nonsense. He was never adopted or naturalized. He recalled with pride how when he lived in Indonesia, he knew he and his mother were different: they were US citizens.
    “Obama’s sister is in the same status that he is.”
    - Yes, she is a natural born citizen of the US.
    “born in Indonesia to a foreign national and a mother who had given up her U.S. citizenship”
    - His mother never gave up her US citizenship. You are completely wrong. Where did you get that bit of bullcr@p? Completely voids your credibility.

  • 163
    Civis naturaliter natus
    July 1st, 2009 23:02

    HD,

    Your continued argument that if dual citizenship disqualified a native born citizen from being president, then any foreign nation could undermine our laws by granting citizenship in their country to all our citizens, is absurd.

    To be a citizen you either have to be born such or request the citizenship. We are talking about one or the other: you are inventing a third category which is properly the grant of a right to acquire, not the grant itself….

    and there is absolutely no evidentiary support or law (to use your words) for your silly argument of this third category…

    Where there are many writers before modern times, among our Framers and the Supreme Court, and Congress, who say that natural born citizenship was a requirement imposed to exclude foreign allegience.

    Rational and sane folks, understanding that historical sayings must be understood in historical circumstances, understand that this applies to actual citizenship, which at the time was granted either by jus soli or jus sanguinis.

    Ergo, the inacapacity to have any foreign allegience would require that in virtue of jus soli and jus sanguinis one has no other alliegence but to that of the USA. This was Leo’s argument in Corts case and it is impeccable…

  • 164
    Wow- Wee , Phil , Why Do You Not Listen, And Cut Off Those Obots As Soon You Catch 'Em In Their First Lie?
    July 1st, 2009 23:37

    Seems you let them steal the Fire in your belly !

    And you let them do it, in only one week, after your “vacation”!

    Pray-tell , your afore 12 : 12 pm. Reply is only coy satire, ..

  • 165
    Sharon 2
    July 2nd, 2009 00:06

    The stimulus package is working really well: my husband lost his job today where he has worked for 15 years. Go ahead Mr. “President,” keep that White House temp in the high 70′s in the winter because as Gibbs guffaws, “Well, he’s from Hawaii” while you tell us to sacrifice.

    I don’t care where Obama was born. He is not an American. There is nothing about his views, his friends, his beliefs, his upbringing, that embodies the American spirit. I can’t show you the proof of how my college education was financed, or even any of my papers, though people who came from humble beginnings have no problem with relating their experiences to inspire others, such as “I got through college by working nights and sleeping in the library.” Or, “I wrote this paper that my professor called one of the best critiques he has ever seen.” Barak O- obfuscator: “My office records in the great State of Illinois shows my commitment to the people, but you’ll just have to take my word for it.” That is the story: I am Barak Obama and speak of hope and change! That is all that is relevant. If I say it, then it is so. I support science, but I will cut funding for adult stem cell research because even though there is demonstrated success, I believe that baby embryos are the way to go. I can’t talk too much more about it because it is above my pay grade. But I can take over a car company.

    I just saw a heart wrenching picture of an Iranian boy bludgeoned in the face so severely that he looked like an alien. (check Atlas blog) No, we can’t “meddle,” unless our dictator kindred spirits are ousted. Our “President” would rather trash our country around the world, a country whose past leaders would have been truly affected by bashed in faces of protesters who have no 2nd Amendment rights.

    I am just so sickened right now by the insanity that has ensued since January that I don’t want to read any of the comments of the Earls or Brygenons or their ilk anymore. Obama is not a proud American. I gave him a pass when I saw the picture of others with their hands over their heart, honoring our country, while he stood with hands at his side. I thought there may have been an innocent reason. There isn’t one. He has put information out in piece meal concerning his birth, information that can not be corroborated or confirmed. Oh yeah, I was born in this hospital (months after the issue was raised, and right after inauguration) but I won’t waive any rights to confirm that. Who the heck has to grapple with stating the name of one’s hospital where one was born? What took so long to answer a simple question, an answer which cannot even be confirmed without a legal challenge with no guarantee of results? There doesn’t seem to be proof that he ever requested a COLB. But, he’s African American and how dare one question his eligibility? Why, that makes one a racist and one becomes as a match to light the fire of crazy folk who decide to shoot innocent guards. There is no honor in how Obama has handled anything, from his birth certificate and onward. Usually, if a word changes meaning, it occurs over a period of time and has some relation to its original meaning. The word transparency has quickly taken a path all of its own, at least Obama’s version of the word.

  • 166
    bystander
    July 2nd, 2009 05:54

    Polarik said

    “According to Hawaii’s State Registrar, Alvin Onaka, Hawaii has never produced a COLB for Obama with a date-stamp of June 6, 2007 — a very, inconvenient truth, indeed.”

    Please provide your evidence to support this statement.

  • 167
    Phil
    July 2nd, 2009 08:46

    earl,

    Here is the law. I have cited this many times. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
    Every person who fits a category in the list of born citizens in USC 8, 1401 is a natural born citizen. The only people who don’t accept this are birthers and children who haven’t taken 7th grade civics. Everyone else in American knows it: the entire Congress, the Electoral College, the FEC, the RNC, the DNC, all the states and territories, the Dept of State, Dept of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA and the entire US military. Plus 70 million Americans who voted for Pres Obama and 99% of the 60 million who voted for McCain. There is no fact, law or court case opinion that supports your position that Pres Obama is not eligible. Even your eligibility bill sponsors know that all that is needed is a birth certificate showing citizenship at birth.

    As I’ve already mentioned in a previous comment to you, the State Department is on record stating that no Court has, to date, produced a definitive definition of natural born citizen for the purposes of presidential eligibility. Therefore, laws like you cite, above, are irrelevant as far as that federal agency is concerned.

    -Phil

  • 168
    da verg
    July 2nd, 2009 10:22

    earl wrote

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

    defines natural born citizens

    NO IT DOES NOT
    it defines CITIZENS, show me the line in this link that says natural born anywhere???

    futhermore the constitution says tha the president must be a , here we go again….a NATURAL born citizen. IT does not say US citizen.

    Boy , these liberals can’t read or comprehend fundalmental ENGLISH. No wonder we have a major educational problem in this nation and some say going to 3rd world status. Get a freaking clue.

  • 169
    HistorianDude
    July 2nd, 2009 10:55

    Civis naturaliter natus:

    Your continued argument that if dual citizenship disqualified a native born citizen from being president, then any foreign nation could undermine our laws by granting citizenship in their country to all our citizens, is absurd.

    To be a citizen you either have to be born such or request the citizenship. We are talking about one or the other: you are inventing a third category which is properly the grant of a right to acquire, not the grant itself….

    Nonsense. I will give you a few perfect examples of where this is not true.

    1. The original citizens of the United States were neither born citizens, nor did they request citizenship. They became citizens automatically on the establishment of the US as an independent nation.

    2. Statutes that award automatic citizenship to spouses or children of naturalized citizens (common around the world) do not require the new citizens to either be born or to request the citizenship.

    3. Numerous American citizenship laws award American citizenship retroactively to persons born in current or former US territories. Such citizens were neither born citizens, nor did they request citizenship. Using Puerto Rico as just one example, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, were automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by President Harry S. Truman on June 27, 1952. Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are “native-born citizens” of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, even the “native-born” status was retroactive.

    So again it appears that you are simply, demonstrably, factually wrong.

  • 170
    HistorianDude
    July 2nd, 2009 10:59

    Polarik says:

    According to Hawaii’s State Registrar, Alvin Onaka, Hawaii has never produced a COLB for Obama with a date-stamp of June 6, 2007 — a very, inconvenient truth, indeed.

    To be an “inconvenient truth,” it must first be an actual truth.

    “Polarik’s” claim here is a lie.

  • 171
    HistorianDude
    July 2nd, 2009 11:06

    And Phil continue to spin:

    As I’ve already mentioned in a previous comment to you, the State Department is on record stating that no Court has, to date, produced a definitive definition of natural born citizen for the purposes of presidential eligibility.

    Actually, the State Department statement is far narrower than you pretend. It refers only to births abroad.

  • 172
    ramjet767
    July 2nd, 2009 12:12

    Earl, Earl, Earl, … you are WRONG again! USC 8 1401 has absolutely nothing with Article II natural born citizenship. Do you do this obfuscation and misleading on purpose?

    Earl said:
    “Here is the law. I have cited this many times. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
    Every person who fits a category in the list of born citizens in USC 8, 1401 is a natural born citizen.”

    There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute that grants “natural born” citizenship to anyone. The legal term of art “natural born citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. It only determines who is a “citizen” or a “national” of the U.S. at birth. The law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law. The legal term of art “citizen at birth” is not the same as the legal term of art “natural born citizen”. Just you simply to note that in one case we are talking about who is a “citizen” at birth and in the other case we have two very important adjectives in front of the word citizen, i.e., “natural born” citizen. That special legal term of art was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise The Law of Nations in 1758 in which he said that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country.

    Natural born citizenship status in a nation is granted by the facts of nature of your birth. No law is necessary to grant it. If you are born in the country of two citizen parents you are a natural born citizen … a citizen too … but special kind of citizen who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military since the child when born has sole allegiance to this country and no claim on him by a foreign power as to their citizenship of a foreign country at birth too. A natural born citizen has no divided loyalty issues by his birth since the child was born in the country to two citizens of the country.

    M Publius Goat’s chart of the different kinds of citizenship in the U.S. Natural born citizens are the most populous group:
    http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1467

    To read more essays on the legal, historical, and natural law meaning of “natural born citizen”, see the research and many essays in this website.

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

  • 173
    Phil
    July 2nd, 2009 13:04

    HistorianDude,

    Polarik says:

    According to Hawaii’s State Registrar, Alvin Onaka, Hawaii has never produced a COLB for Obama with a date-stamp of June 6, 2007 — a very, inconvenient truth, indeed.

    To be an “inconvenient truth,” it must first be an actual truth.

    “Polarik’s” claim here is a lie.

    Again, let’s back up for a moment and examine this.

    After Dr. Polarik mentioned the question on my site, I then repeated it: Can anyone cite the source for the transaction that occurred to procure Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth? After all, States do not simply give these things out to whomever asks for them, and these transactions cost money.

    Now you claim that what Dr. Polarik has said — which, admittedly, his claim has yet to be sourced — is a “lie,” to use your term. Necessarily, that means you know for a fact that what Dr. Polarik is claiming is, as you put it, a “lie.” Therefore, how do you know? Put the entire question to rest and provide the evidence (outside of your personal opinion) that shows that Dr. Polarik is, in fact, as you put it, “l[ying]” about the claim.

    For the record, I have gone an additional step further. I have sent a request to the Hawaiian Department of Health specifically asking for the record — on or about June 6, 2007 — of the transaction that was produced that someone actually procured the certification of live birth. I have asked if this is something anyone from the public can request and, if so, what must be done to request the record. Since this is a holiday weekend, I’m realistically not expecting a response until sometime next week.

    In addition, I wanted to point out some things regarding FactCheck.org’s recounting of the birth certificate issue.

    1. All discussions regarding the alleged certification of live birth are based on derived conclusions that originate from a discussion having to do with the actual 1961 birth certificate that the HI DoH claims to have on file. In other words, I have not found anything on the referenced page that is sourced to specifically talk about the COLB being directly and officially referenced by the Hawaiian officials nor that the COLB in any way substantiates Mr. Obama’s eligibility;

    2. I draw your attention to the following two paragraphs:

    The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

    The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

    Two points need to be made concerning this second point:

    1. Everyone is in agreement that information that would be contained on a person’s short-form birth certification is substantial enough for the purposes of “proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport” (arguments of Mr. Obama not being a US citizen are suspended for the moment). However, we’re talking about presidential eligibility, not whether or not someone is getting a passport or what not;

    2. While it may be true that “their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department,” even the State Department specifically says that there is no conclusive way to determine natural born citizenship for the purposes of presidential eligibility, to wit:

    Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
    (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
    a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    So, while you’re entitled to an opinion that what Dr. Polarik has said is a “lie,” perhaps you’d like to back up your claim with something verifiable, else you really don’t know what you’re talking about and you really should be saying, “I don’t think that’s correct, but I have no way of knowing at this time.”

    -Phil

  • 174
    Phil
    July 2nd, 2009 13:06

    HistorianDude,

    Actually, the State Department statement is far narrower than you pretend. It refers only to births abroad.

    And as you are keenly aware by now, both FactCheck.org and FightTheSmears.com both clearly affirm that Mr. Obama was a British citizen at birth. Should you decide to read the laws that governed such nationalities at the time, you will see that geographical location did not matter; whether or not one’s father was a British subject was all that mattered.

    Therefore, in my opinion (which, incidentally, I’ll remind you, is no better or worse than yours), in the eyes of the law, he was born as a foreign citizen.

    -Phil

  • 175
    earl
    July 2nd, 2009 18:19

    ramjet767 says:
    July 2, 2009 at 12:12 pm
    Earl, Earl, Earl, … you are WRONG again! USC 8 1401 has absolutely nothing with Article II natural born citizenship.”

    Nope, I’m right. USC 8 1401 defines in great detail who is a citizen at birth. Citizens at birth ARE natural born citizens. That’s the standard our government and our entire election system uses, and it’s the same standard the congressmen are using in their eligibility bill that calls for just a birth certificate. It’s also what’s been taught in 7th grade civics for the last 200 years. That’s why nobody in the Electoral College or the Congress objected – They know Pres Obama is a natural born citizen. You abandoned what you learned for a 1 year old theory put forward by Donofrio because if it were true, it disqualifies Pres Obama. Donofrio even admits the ‘two citizen parent’ requirement is what he wishes the definition of natural born citizen was, not what it actually is. It’s a theory of his, not “the way it’s always been.”

  • 176
    jvn
    July 2nd, 2009 19:46

    Phil -

    I would like your legal opinion on something.

    It appears to me that under the Constitution, the Electoral College (in voting) and Congress (in certifying that vote) are the decision making authorities when it comes to Presidential eligibility.

    Someone seeking a federal court to overturn those actions would have to do so under the premise that they proceeded UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, right?

    That is to say: that the actions taken by the Congress were UNCONSTITUTIONAL – not that they were incorrect in their conclusion, right?

    So the only reason to void the decision would be if the Congress did not follow CONSTITUTIONAL procedures in arriving at their decision.

    The way I see it, Congress is the final authority on presidential elections (see the election of 1876, for example).

    Can you tell me where I’m wrong?

    jvn

  • 177
    Appy American
    July 2nd, 2009 21:19

    HD,Earl & Brygenon,
    Would either or all of please answer a question for me. That question concerns the “birth certificate”. Is it your opinion that the photo listed by factcheck.org is, in fact, the ONLY birth certificate that the state of Hawaii has in it’s posession? My reason for asking is, one of the links, to a newspaper article that Earl keeps putting up, might lead one to believe that in 2001 when Hawaii went paperless, all old original birth certificates may have been destroyed. The article doesn’t actually state that point but it could be taken that way. This leads to my question. Is the factcheck.org image the only one left, in your opinion? Thanks in advance.

  • 178
    Phil
    July 2nd, 2009 22:30

    jvn,

    I’m not an attorney, so I cannot give a legal opinion on anything. I can, however, give a personal opinion on the subject.

    The point in all initiatives to date is to get the Judiciary (especially) and the Legislative to not only recognize that the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution has never been defined but to actually go about defining it.

    It is further thought — by folks such as myself — that Mr. Obama’s having been born a British subject is altogether important for the fact that the founding fathers didn’t want to have anyone who was born anywhere in the world to become President (because of the enormous power of the office), not that somehow foreign law has any sort of precedence over American law.

    -Phil

  • 179
    jvn
    July 2nd, 2009 23:18

    Respectfully Phil, your desire to have the clause (NBC) defined is not relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama.

    The election officials in all or any state, the Electoral College or the Congress of the United States could have taken up the matter, could have either defined what an NBC is or could have asked the USSC for a ruling on what an NBC is – but did not.

    It seems quite clear from the fact that not one of these officials: in the states, in the Electoral College or in the Congress even so much as raised the issue that not one of them believed it was an issue.

    The Constitutional process is over. The Electoral College (who have the duty to ensure that only a qualified candidate is elected to be President (Federalist #68))has voted, and the Congress (who have the duty to certify that the Electoral College vote has been conducted properly and correctly)have certified those votes.

    The federal courts have declined to intervene with the SCOTUS considering several cases containing several theories.

    The lack of action by these Constitutional authorities is a de facto ruling that anyone born within the geographic boundaries of the United States is a citizen at birth and that absent action by that citizen after they reach legal maturity to reject their naturally born United States citizenship, they are able to seek the office and serve in the office of President so long as they meet the other Constitutional requirements.

    A man who admittedly had dual rights to citizenship at birth is serving as President with the consent of the Constitutional authorities charged with ensuring the qualifications of those who serve there.

    Certainly we can hope that the NBC clause will be defined and codified, but that is not relevant to the President serving.

    The facts speak for themselves.

    jvn

  • 180
    ramjet767
    July 3rd, 2009 12:07

    To all — but especially to Earl and HistorianDude:

    Here is a quick demo to remind and educate people of how easy it is to create a digital image of a COLB document, just like the one that Obama has proffered as his on the internet. Then after you’ve made the phony document image and people question you why there are no fold marks, you can print it out on paper and tri-fold it to look like a real piece of paper that was mailed and show pictures of that on your campaign site, or an affiliated or supporters site, or on a website that does not dig any deeper than to take the campaign’s word for it. No expert document examiner in any official government capacity or better yet independently has ever been allowed to examine that paper pictured on the net in the second rounds of images placed on the net and to declare that it is a genuine COLB document for Obama. And all the reporters in the Main Stream Media is download and printout the same digital image and wave it in front of the cameras and say, look people here’s a copy of Obama “birth certificate” which is really not anything of the kind. Like I said before, in these modern times with document and image creation and altering software like PhotoShop, a digital image, or a printed out document created from that image, and then displayed only on the internet to the electorate and public is proof of nothing.

    YouTube video showing how easy it is to digitally create a “birth certificate” out of simple data bits in cyberspace:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg8U_N1i38Q

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

  • 181
    HistorianDude
    July 3rd, 2009 15:00

    Appy American:

    Would either or all of please answer a question for me. That question concerns the “birth certificate”. Is it your opinion that the photo listed by factcheck.org is, in fact, the ONLY birth certificate that the state of Hawaii has in it’s posession? My reason for asking is, one of the links, to a newspaper article that Earl keeps putting up, might lead one to believe that in 2001 when Hawaii went paperless, all old original birth certificates may have been destroyed. The article doesn’t actually state that point but it could be taken that way. This leads to my question. Is the factcheck.org image the only one left, in your opinion? Thanks in advance.

    There is no good reason to believe that any of the original birth certificates were destroyed at the time the information was transcribed to an electronic database. Dr. Fukino’s statement last year was that he had personally seen the certificate, so it must still exist.

  • 182
    HistorianDude
    July 3rd, 2009 15:06

    Phil:

    And as you are keenly aware by now, both FactCheck.org and FightTheSmears.com both clearly affirm that Mr. Obama was a British citizen at birth.

    And that has nothing to do with the State Department comment which refers only to American births abroad.

    Should you decide to read the laws that governed such nationalities at the time, you will see that geographical location did not matter; whether or not one’s father was a British subject was all that mattered.

    Which has exactly nothing to do with the State Department comment which was explicitly about American birth abroad.

    Therefore, in my opinion (which, incidentally, I’ll remind you, is no better or worse than yours), in the eyes of the law, he was born as a foreign citizen.

    Which has absolutely nothing to do with the comment by the State Department, which made no mention of foregn citizenship whatsoever.

    Therefore, in my opinion (which incidentally has proven vastly superior to your own based on the eventual accuracy of my predictions) your comment here is a transparent attempt to change the subject rather than address my observation.

  • 183
    HistorianDude
    July 3rd, 2009 15:39

    Phil:

    For the record, I have gone an additional step further. I have sent a request to the Hawaiian Department of Health specifically asking for the record — on or about June 6, 2007 — of the transaction that was produced that someone actually procured the certification of live birth. I have asked if this is something anyone from the public can request and, if so, what must be done to request the record. Since this is a holiday weekend, I’m realistically not expecting a response until sometime next week.

    Great. The response will settle the issue regarding whether or not “Dr. Polarik” is lying.

    If they respond with anything other than “no one requested such a record” then we will all know that he was lying.

    In addition, I wanted to point out some things regarding FactCheck.org’s recounting of the birth certificate issue.

    1. All discussions regarding the alleged certification of live birth are based on derived conclusions that originate from a discussion having to do with the actual 1961 birth certificate that the HI DoH claims to have on file. In other words, I have not found anything on the referenced page that is sourced to specifically talk about the COLB being directly and officially referenced by the Hawaiian officials nor that the COLB in any way substantiates Mr. Obama’s eligibility;

    I have read that paragraph several times. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

    While it may be true that “their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department,” even the State Department specifically says that there is no conclusive way to determine natural born citizenship for the purposes of presidential eligibility, to wit:

    Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
    (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
    a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    1. You are not being honest when you assert that this statement “says that there is no conclusive way to determine natural born citizenship for the purposes of presidential eligibility.” It says nothing close.

    2. It mentions only the single and specific circumstance of “a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens.”

    3. The statement is completely silent on the very different circumstance of a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth on American soil. In that circumstance, it has been determined definitely by a court. I refer you (again) to Lynch v. Clarke, where the Supreme Court of New York surveyed the history of citizenship law and concluded that the correct interpretation of citizenship in the US Constitution is based on British Common Law (the law of the United States at the time of the American Revolution). The decision explicitly observed that a person born in the United States of alien parents was eligible to be president.

    Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

    “The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

    “It is an indispensable proposition, that by the rule of common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents. So if a Frenchman and his wife, came to England, and had a son during their stay, he was a liege man.”

  • 184
    Phil
    July 4th, 2009 12:06

    jvn,

    Respectfully Phil, your desire to have the clause (NBC) defined is not relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama.

    The lack of action by these Constitutional authorities is a de facto ruling that anyone born within the geographic boundaries of the United States is a citizen at birth and that absent action by that citizen after they reach legal maturity to reject their naturally born United States citizenship, they are able to seek the office and serve in the office of President so long as they meet the other Constitutional requirements.

    A man who admittedly had dual rights to citizenship at birth is serving as President with the consent of the Constitutional authorities charged with ensuring the qualifications of those who serve there.

    Certainly we can hope that the NBC clause will be defined and codified, but that is not relevant to the President serving.

    The facts speak for themselves.

    As with much of the opposition on this issue, while I completely agree that the facts speak for themselves, leading conclusions are merely a result of one’s own subjective analysis — be it correct or no — of the issue at hand.

    -Phil

  • 185
    brygenon
    July 4th, 2009 16:42

    Appy American asked:

    Would either or all of please answer a question for me. That question concerns the “birth certificate”. Is it your opinion that the photo listed by factcheck.org is, in fact, the ONLY birth certificate that the state of Hawaii has in it’s posession?

    Quite likely they still retain the old form. Either way, they now exclusively issue the COLB: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html as the official birth certificate.

    I’m a kookologist, not an archivist. The reason that the birthers insist on the old form is that they do not have it. A conspiracy theory will find a way to discount the actual evidence, but take perfectly normal absences as convincing proof for their cause.

  • 186
    earl
    July 4th, 2009 20:05

    Appy American says:
    July 2, 2009 at 9:19 pm
    “HD,Earl & Brygenon,
    Would either or all of please answer a question for me. That question concerns the “birth certificate”. Is it your opinion that the photo listed by factcheck.org is, in fact, the ONLY birth certificate that the state of Hawaii has in it’s posession? My reason for asking is, one of the links, to a newspaper article that Earl keeps putting up, might lead one to believe that in 2001 when Hawaii went paperless, all old original birth certificates may have been destroyed. The article doesn’t actually state that point but it could be taken that way. This leads to my question. Is the factcheck.org image the only one left, in your opinion? Thanks in advance.”

    The photo on factcheck is of a certified copy of his Certification of Live Birth taken at Obama Headquarters in Chicago. The Obama campaign said it was one of several copies Barack Obama requested in 2007 to use for identification in filing to be on the ballot in all the states. Hawaii has all their birth records in a computer database now, but the Hawaii Dept of Health says they still have Pres Obama’s original on file. If all the copies in his possession were distributed, lost, stolen, whatever, all Pres Obama would have to do is request another one. The raised seal, the date and the signature are what makes it an official copy. That’s the beauty of electronic records, if the court house burns down or the bank with safe deposit box gets flooded, no worries, you can always get a new copy.

  • 187
    Appy American
    July 5th, 2009 11:12

    So, we are in agreement here that the original birth certificate still exists. This leads to my next question, which is, do you trust all politicians or government officials? Do you believe that all politicians/govt officials will tell the truth with every thing that they say or do? Does blackmail, money, career advancement or anything like this that will benefit said people not cause concern? This is my problem with this controversy. I don’t believe or trust politicians/officials farther than I can throw them. To blindly believe this group of people is, to my way of thinking, assanine. Especially the current resident of the White House. This one has proven himself adept at grandly promising to do one thing and then turn around and do the opposite. He allows nothing to stand in the way of what he wants to accomplish. Does Jack Ryan ring a bell? IF, he is what he says he is, prove it, without hiding behind all the rules and regulations Earl wants to provide links to. I must say Earl, that you do a good job of trying to back up your side of the argument. As a wise man once said, “trust but verify”. Or words to that effect.

  • 188
    Appy American
    July 5th, 2009 11:16

    After rereading Earls last response,the question begs answering. Why not take a photo of the original and put it out for all to see?

  • 189
    MGB
    July 5th, 2009 12:06

    earl, you said, “The Obama campaign said it was one of several copies Barack Obama requested in 2007 to use for identification in filing to be on the ballot in all the states.”

    Could you please give us the source for this statement? I have never seen anyone else allege that they requested more than one copy or that they were to be used “for identification in filing to be on the ballot in all the states.” In fact, so far as I know, nobody has found ANY state that required Obama to provide identification, especially a birth certificate or COLB, in order to get on the ballot. That is exactly the gist of the problem.

    earl, you seem to have a tendency to throw out opinions or misreadings of statements as FACT. If the Obama campaign said such a thing, then please show us where we can find that exact statement.

  • 190
    Joseph Maine
    July 5th, 2009 14:49

    brygenon,

    You continue to baffle with ignorance (willing) and stupidity regarding the point of those you call “the birthers”. You have to address the point(s) of the skeptics, which include the likes of Phil and myself, as well as others. Those points are included in the question to you:

    What evidence? You keep citing the evidence but the COLB is not official and has been changed many times. No Hawaiian official has gone on public record and said anything about the COLB.

    Honest people, even on your side, will maintain that if Obama is legitimate, he has handled every step of this the wrong way. For supporters, they don’t want to look at human nature and common sense, but legal rights. For skeptics, we look at why he won’t just show an original birth certificate OR have an official verify his supposedly real document. Which brings up the next point:

    THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. Why? He can end it all by just showing the birth certificate! And that’s why a reasonable judge will go to discovery: the outcome can be decided or shown definitively.

    Do you not recognize, as Phil has said many times (and is plain fact) that no one checks the candidates for eligibility? If so, why are you surprised that skeptics exist the way that Obama has handled this? That’s a natural reaction, among other things. If you don’t recognize the lack of checking, please refer me to the governmental agency that checks and tell me what their findings are.

    Wait, you can’t do that? Exactly. The point goes on: You can’t even direct me to one person or agency that has vouched or legitimized Obama by referring to the supposed COLB put on the internet! Even if it’s real still no one has verified it or used it to substantiate his claims!

    Why shouldn’t we be skeptical when this is the case? No one checks and you call us conspiracy theorists? You’ve got a lot of explaining to do.

  • 191
    HistorianDude
    July 5th, 2009 17:41

    Ramjet:

    Like I said before, in these modern times with document and image creation and altering software like PhotoShop, a digital image, or a printed out document created from that image, and then displayed only on the internet to the electorate and public is proof of nothing.

    And like I said before, you will never personally get to hold a certified copy of Obama’s COLB in your hand. The best you can ever aspire to is an image such as that online, backed up by the testimony of people who have personally examined the document and judged its authenticity.

    Obama’s COLB has been so examined and so judged.

    Now… if you possess something that no other Birther has ever been able to present, i.e. a single piece of evidence that contradicts the COLB, please show us. Otherwise understand that lacking any such evidence, the COLB alone meets the civil legal standard of “preponderance of evidence” on its face… no “expert examination” required.

    THIS is the most significant hurdle that the Birther movement has yet to cross. Not the issue of standing, but the issue that there is exactly zero evidence in favor of the Birther speculation.

  • 192
    HistorianDude
    July 5th, 2009 17:48

    Joseph Maine:

    With so many blatant falsehoods to choose from in your post, I will address only one:

    THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. Why? He can end it all by just showing the birth certificate! And that’s why a reasonable judge will go to discovery: the outcome can be decided or shown definitively.

    Anyone who claims that “He can end it all by just showing the birth certificate,” has not apparently read a single one of the cases ever filed by Birthers on this issue. With the single exception of the non-Birther suit Martin v. Lingle, every such suit is based upon multiple or dissonant theories which would continue the cases even were a video released of his Hawaiian Birth with Don Ho in attendance. Even ignoring that he has already provided absolute legal proof of his place of birth, no cases and none of the contrived controversy would end were he to cough up the long form.

    This is a conspiracy theory by objective definition, because there is no evidence whatsoever that would genuinely satisfy the theorists. This is proven by the court cases themselves.

  • 193
    HistorianDude
    July 5th, 2009 17:50

    Appy American:

    After rereading Earls last response,the question begs answering. Why not take a photo of the original and put it out for all to see?

    Probably because he does not have the original.

  • 194
    HistorianDude
    July 5th, 2009 17:57

    Appy American:

    So, we are in agreement here that the original birth certificate still exists. This leads to my next question, which is, do you trust all politicians or government officials?

    No more than I trust all non-politicians or non-government officials.

    Do you believe that all politicians/govt officials will tell the truth with every thing that they say or do?

    Of course not. In fact, given the nature of their responsibilities and the information to which they have access, I do not desire them to tell the truth with everything that they say or do.

    Does blackmail, money, career advancement or anything like this that will benefit said people not cause concern?

    Of course. But no more concern than any other field or profession with impact and influence.

    This is my problem with this controversy. I don’t believe or trust politicians/officials farther than I can throw them.

    That is a reflection primarily on you. I do not share the extreme and automatic prejudice that you admit to here.

  • 195
    earl
    July 5th, 2009 19:41

    MGB:

    “We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and “all the records we could get our hands on” according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. ”
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    The statement that “copies” (plural) were requested in 2007 to get ready for registering in the states was made by Tommy Vietor. I can’t find the campaign statement, but he still works for Pres Obama, he’s an assistant press secretary. Call him up and confirm. 202-456-1414. Better than a cite, you can get it direct from the horse’s mouth to your ear.

  • 196
    Phil
    July 5th, 2009 21:53

    HistorianDude,

    This is a conspiracy theory by objective definition, because there is no evidence whatsoever that would genuinely satisfy the theorists. This is proven by the court cases themselves.

    Therefore, dismissed Court cases must necessarily mean a conspiracy theory?

    And you wonder why most folks on my blog see you as a rather obtrusive blow-hard.

    -Phil

  • 197
    brygenon
    July 6th, 2009 00:05

    Phil wrote:

    And you [HistorianDude] wonder why most folks on my blog see you as a rather obtrusive blow-hard.

    I assume you realize, Phil, how most of America sees your blog, when they see it at all. Was the mad, ranting e-mail Shepard Smith read so different from what we see here all the time?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI

    When they suggested taking a spin around the blogs to see the level of frightening anger and craziness, who did you think they were talking about?

  • 198
    Phil
    July 6th, 2009 08:32

    brygenon,

    I assume you realize, Phil, how most of America sees your blog, when they see it at all. Was the mad, ranting e-mail Shepard Smith read so different from what we see here all the time?

    When they suggested taking a spin around the blogs to see the level of frightening anger and craziness, who did you think they were talking about?

    Perhaps I haven’t made things abundantly clear in the past regarding my site’s handling of the eligibility issue, so I shall do so now.

    I do not require anyone’s validation, whether friend or foe, concerning what I post on my site. My statistics show that it (my site) is being read far and wide around the blogosphere by friend and foe alike, and I have received scads of emails in support of my site. I have a burgeoning email announcement list and several hundred Twitter “Followers.”

    On the contrary, my dear opposition commenter, not only am I having tons of fun, but I have a rather respectable audience that appreciates what’s posted and having a civilized debate on the issue.

    -Phil

  • 199
    da verg
    July 6th, 2009 10:44

    Earl wrote

    Nope, I’m right. USC 8 1401 defines in great detail who is a citizen at birth

    >>>that’s right earl, it defines who a US CITIZEN is at birth. BUT NO WHERE DOES IT DEFINE A NATURAL BORNE CITIZEN!! Why? Because EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A NATURAL BORNE CITIZEN REQUIRES TWO PARENTS TO BE US CITIZENS. THAT IS WHY. SO THE USC 8 DOESN’T NEED TO DEFINE THAT WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS, e.g the sky is blue, marriage is between a man and a woman, etc. FURTHERMORE THE US CONSTITUTION SAYS THE PRESIDENT MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, not a US CITIZEN, nor a US CITIZEN per USC 8 1401. GET IT? doh,, talking to this guy is liking talking to a [Bleep!] 2 yo. Perfect example of liberalism = a mental disease.

  • 200
    Appy American
    July 6th, 2009 10:48

    HD, I was not specifically referring to Earl taking a picture back there, but then you probably knew that. I was talking about somebody with authority in Hawaii. Call PBHO and ask his permission to take a picture of his birth certificate and let qualified people see the picture. It should provide all the supporting data needed to prove who he is. Doctors names and places, and if all that jives, Phil will lose a reader. Please do not lump me in with all those RWEers, you’re causing me to blush. Seriously, for me and me alone, seeing the original bc will bring my questions about his eligibility to an end. He either is or he is not. As to the British citizenship angle, I’ll leave that to people who have the suthority to make a ruling one way or the other. I can however read a simple piece of paper and determine whether or not I have been lied to.

  • 201
    brygenon
    July 6th, 2009 13:01

    Joseph Maine says:

    brygenon,

    You continue to baffle with ignorance (willing) and stupidity regarding the point of those you call “the birthers”.

    And yet in the real world, it’s your side that gets trounced every single time.

    You have to address the point(s) of the skeptics, which include the likes of Phil and myself, as well as others. Those points are included in the question to you:

    What evidence? You keep citing the evidence but the COLB is not official and has been changed many times. No Hawaiian official has gone on public record and said anything about the COLB.

    The COLB checks out:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    It has the features specified for state records in 28 USC 1739, and thus enjoys full faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. I looked them up.

    Honest people, even on your side, will maintain that if Obama is legitimate, he has handled every step of this the wrong way.

    Does it take much practice to stay that far from reality? Even Barack Obama’s serious adversaries agree that he ran a brilliant campaign, and “Fight the Smears” was a significant part of that.

    You guys got debunked quickly then ignored. The Muslim rumor, probably started by Andy Martin, got more play, but the Obama campaign turned it into a story about false and bigoted attacks.

    For supporters, they don’t want to look at human nature and common sense, but legal rights. For skeptics, we look at why he won’t just show an original birth certificate OR have an official verify his supposedly real document. Which brings up the next point:

    THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. Why? He can end it all by just showing the birth certificate! And that’s why a reasonable judge will go to discovery: the outcome can be decided or shown definitively.

    Of course it’s a conspiracy theory. He already showed his birth certificate, and allowed reporters to inspect and photograph it. You guys live in a fantasy where you discount the actual evidence and obsess over nonsense you build up in your heads.

    Do you not recognize, as Phil has said many times (and is plain fact) that no one checks the candidates for eligibility?

    Hmmm… how to get this through… Did you see the movie The Incredibles. Mrs. Incredible tells her young son, “Everyone is special”. The kid astutely replies, “That’s just another way of saying no one is.”

    If so, why are you surprised that skeptics exist the way that Obama has handled this?

    We kookoligsts see this all the time: you credophiles imagine yourselves to be skeptics.

  • 202
    Phil
    July 6th, 2009 13:03

    brygenon,

    Do you not recognize, as Phil has said many times (and is plain fact) that no one checks the candidates for eligibility?

    Hmmm… how to get this through… Did you see the movie The Incredibles. Mrs. Incredible tells her young son, “Everyone is special”. The kid astutely replies, “That’s just another way of saying no one is.”

    Are you saying you’re OK with the fact that there is no law that requires presidential, or any other, candidates to be vetted for eligibility?

    -Phil

  • 203
    Simple Interest
    July 6th, 2009 16:06

    earl says:
    July 1, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    I put together a compilation of your answers to a previous response that I posted. Please look at what you have stated:
    - I am troubled that birthers insist on more identification from Pres Obama than any other President in history. Why is that?
    - Um, HUH? That statement makes no sense.
    - Ridiculous. Native does not mean naturalized. Websters: Native means born in a particular place or country. When Obama said he was a native American he was saying he was born in America.
    - We do know. He never acted on it. I read his book before he was a candidate, I read the born with dual citizenship part.
    - Utter nonsense. He was never adopted or naturalized. He recalled with pride how when he lived in Indonesia, he knew he and his mother were different: they were US citizens.
    - Yes, she is a natural born citizen of the US.
    - His mother never gave up her US citizenship. You are completely wrong. Where did you get that bit of bullcr@p? Completely voids your credibility.

    Earl, You have shown that you do not wish to enter into a substantive discussion. You have used the terms “utter nonsense” & “ridiculous” & “uh–makes no sense”, where clearly your arguments and responses, to not just my posts but others, are absolutely nonsense & that’s why I posed them to you. You talk about reading Obama’s books but you refuse to acknowledge all of his statements, which clearly contradict what you have taken from his books—if you have in fact read them at all. More importantly, you have stated that his sister is a natural born citizen, when not even she has made such a proclamation. Earl, you have listed me as a birther, but you don’t know me. I try not to list people, even when they expose themselves as you have. You speak with a racial and political tongue and most of the time, those who speak that way have no substance to his/her arguments. Please read your responses, and in closing to the points you’ve raised, your belief is that a person with dual citizenship is a natural born citizen, as you’ve stated about Obama & his family, and your argument does not even merit a response. You are making it about Obama and I’m interested in our country. If you are making about a “black” president, the framers made it where even now there are countless “black” men or women who are Constitutionally qualified to hold the office by meeting the “natural born citizen” requirement, but Obama is simply not the one. I’m sorry that there are people who are making it political and/or racial, rather than just American!!!! Good Luck on your endeavors!!!!

  • 204
    brygenon
    July 6th, 2009 16:53

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    [Joseph Maine wrote:]

    Do you not recognize, as Phil has said many times (and is plain fact) that no one checks the candidates for eligibility?

    Hmmm… how to get this through… Did you see the movie The Incredibles. Mrs. Incredible tells her young son, “Everyone is special”. The kid astutely replies, “That’s just another way of saying no one is.”

    Are you saying you’re OK with the fact that there is no law that requires presidential, or any other, candidates to be vetted for eligibility?

    Sure, and lets face reality: You too were “OK with the fact” until this last election. There’s something about our 44′th president — the only one to publicly exhibit legal documentation that he was born a citizen — that makes you want to change the rules, and in violation of the Constitution impose your special requirement ex post facto.

  • 205
    MGB
    July 6th, 2009 16:57

    earl, with all due respect, it’s a little ridiculous to cite FactCheck, when part of the issue is that they are co-dependents with the Obama campaign, with regard to obfuscating about this issue.

    Nevertheless, I looked at what FactCheck wrote. They don’t have a direct quote from the campaign, except for the part about “all the records . . .” Nobody said they requested multiple copies and nobody said that they requested them for use when applying to be on ballots.

    Notice that FactCheck says that they visited the “original birth certificate”. Completely untrue. The original resides in Hawaii, according to Fukino. Did FactCheck go to Hawaii? I don’t think so.

    In addition, since you believe FactCheck, that they SAW the COLB from which that digital image at their website was supposedly created, WHY didn’t/doesn’t the Obama campaign allow any and all OTHER members of the media to visit it, too? Where is the thing? Why doesn’t Robert Gibbs show it at a WH press conference? Why did they allow only FactCheck people to see it? Why didn’t FactCheck photograph the entire back side? WHY do YOU believe FactCheck? Isn’t it at all suspicious to you that instead of simply showing the document at a press conference, instead Obama spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent having to produce said document in a court of law?

  • 206
    HistorianDude
    July 6th, 2009 19:02

    Phil:

    Therefore, dismissed Court cases must necessarily mean a conspiracy theory?

    Of course not. What a goofy question. It certainly resembles nothing that can be found in any of my posts. You really gotta stop just making stuff up.

    Here… I’ll explain it for you:

    Dismissed court cases automatically mean that the the plaintiffs have (for any number of reasons) no real case.

    The fact that a theory depend on elaborate, gargantuan, pervasive and ultimately impossible conspiracies is what necessarily means a conspiracy theory.

    Two different things. See how that works?

    And you wonder why most folks on my blog see you as a rather obtrusive blow-hard.

    Let me make sure i am hearing you correctly:

    People consider me a “rather obtrusive blow-hard” because you make goofy statements and falsely pretend that they have anything to do with something I said?

    I don’t think so.

  • 207
    HistorianDude
    July 6th, 2009 19:16

    Appy American:

    HD, I was not specifically referring to Earl taking a picture back there.

    Neither was I. I was talking about Obama.

    I was talking about somebody with authority in Hawaii.

    Nobody in Hawaii has that authority. You know that.

    Call PBHO and ask his permission to take a picture of his birth certificate and let qualified people see the picture.

    But you know full well that he cannot do that without setting a disastrous precedent. Did you forget that there are court cases underway?

    It should provide all the supporting data needed to prove who he is. Doctors names and places, and if all that jives, Phil will lose a reader.

    He has already proved who he is, AA. Every relevant name and place is already on the state issued and certified birth certificate he has already released. That document is, by law, absolute proof of his citizenship at birth.

    Why would anyone possibly care whether or not Phil loses a reader, let alone eviscerate the legal foundation of standing to make that happen?

    Seriously, for me and me alone, seeing the original bc will bring my questions about his eligibility to an end.

    I’m quite certain that such a possibility is not on the radar of anybody who actually matters. His eligibility does not depend on your personal standards of “proof.” There are formal, legal standards in place specifically to eliminate the ambiguity of personal affectation.

    This is why we have birth certificates in the first place.

  • 208
    HistorianDude
    July 6th, 2009 19:18

    Phil:

    Are you saying you’re OK with the fact that there is no law that requires presidential, or any other, candidates to be vetted for eligibility?

    I am.

  • 209
    Phil
    July 6th, 2009 20:46

    brygenon,

    You too were “OK with the fact” until this last election.

    I completely fail to see how you can draw any kind of conclusion such as this considering that my site has only existed since Friday, October 24, 2008, and so there is no way you could possibly know my thoughts on the subject.

    -Phil

  • 210
    Phil
    July 6th, 2009 20:59

    HistorianDude,

    Of course not. What a goofy question. It certainly resembles nothing that can be found in any of my posts. You really gotta stop just making stuff up.

    And, yet, you absolutely insist upon typing my site’s domain name into your favorite web browser and continually take the time to actually make comments on my postings.

    Who’s fooling whom?

    Dismissed court cases automatically mean that the the plaintiffs have (for any number of reasons) no real case.

    The fact that a theory depend on elaborate, gargantuan, pervasive and ultimately impossible conspiracies is what necessarily means a conspiracy theory.

    Two different things. See how that works?

    Of course. Yet, the fact that eligibility cases, to date, have been dismissed is not synonymous with their being conspiracy theories.

    Also, regarding the concept that the eligibility question is a conspiracy theory. I simply fail to see how background documentation that, being unsealed, would show exactly who the President is should somehow be construed as conspiratorial.

    If anything, the fact that folks such as yourself have a real issue with examining this President’s unreleased background documentation certainly gives credence to the argument that there is something to hide.

    -Phil

  • 211
    Phil
    July 6th, 2009 21:02

    HistorianDude,

    At least you’re being intellectually honest. It’s simply too bad you have such rank disrespect for the rule of law.

    -Phil

  • 212
    Appy American
    July 6th, 2009 22:38

    Dude, will you be so kind as to explain to me what disastrous precedent would be set by showing his original long form birth certificate? I can see where it might be disastrous if he actually shows the real thing, but that’s surely not what you are talking about. Could you be talking about setting the precedent of proving your eligibility? I can see where that might be a problem. What in the hell is wrong with proving your eligibility???

  • 213
    brygenon
    July 7th, 2009 03:55

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    You too were “OK with the fact” until this last election.

    I completely fail to see how you can draw any kind of conclusion such as this considering that my site has only existed since Friday, October 24, 2008, and so there is no way you could possibly know my thoughts on the subject.

    Of course you “completely fail to see”; that’s your thing. You even think that the fact you started your screeds in October of last year is somehow a point on your side. Where’s your outrage that no one officially checked Bill Clinton’s birth certificate or Ronald Reagan’s? You want to change the rules just for this particular president.

    You guys may be fooling yourselves, but you are not fooling America. You want this president treated vastly differently from his predecessors, but — in case you haven’t noticed — we’re not letting that happen.

  • 214
    Phil
    July 7th, 2009 09:04

    brygenon,

    Of course you “completely fail to see”; that’s your thing.

    I’m simply stating what is my current perspective on your current assertion. Nobody ever said you had to like it.

    You even think that the fact you started your screeds in October of last year is somehow a point on your side.

    I’m not after “points,” I’m after the truth. Unfortunately, your bias kept you from seeing the real point, which was that there is no way you could have made such a blatantly unfounded assertion concerning my person as expressed on my site because my site simply didn’t exist far enough into the past to provide enough of an archive to back up your claim.

    Where’s your outrage that no one officially checked Bill Clinton’s birth certificate or Ronald Reagan’s?

    Who’s to say that I did or didn’t do so? Who’s to say that not checking up on one President’s credentials is necessarily contingent with checking up on another’s? Who’s to say that there was or was not conjecture, at the time or since, that their ancestry shows that there was a possibility that they were or were not natural born citizens?

    You want to change the rules just for this particular president.

    Another unfounded assertion. In this case for this claim, I have repeatedly noted on this site that the issue is not one of changing the rules, but rather of enforcing the rules.

    Of course, it would be phenomenally easier if there were actually law enforcement in place. Yet, that’s the beauty of having the 10th Amendment.

    You want this president treated vastly differently from his predecessors, but — in case you haven’t noticed — we’re not letting that happen.

    Interesting — a direct challenge. Somehow you think you have the power and authority to “not let[] that happen.” I can only speculate on exactly how you’re going to actually enforce such a challenge.

    Nevertheless, be advised that there are at least as many folks who are interested in demanding the truth as there are as many folks who are interested in demanding that the truth never be found.

    -Phil

  • 215
    brygenon
    July 7th, 2009 10:26

    Phil wrote:

    brygenon [wrote],

    You want this president treated vastly differently from his predecessors, but — in case you haven’t noticed — we’re not letting that happen.

    Interesting — a direct challenge. Somehow you think you have the power and authority to “not let[] that happen.” I can only speculate on exactly how you’re going to actually enforce such a challenge.

    You snipped and missed it: we Americans are not letting your hate change how we treat the President. If you can only speculate on how we’re doing it, well, again, you’re just not facing reality.

  • 216
    HistorianDude
    July 7th, 2009 10:54

    Appy American:

    Dude, will you be so kind as to explain to me what disastrous precedent would be set by showing his original long form birth certificate?

    I am happy to make this point just as many times as you guys insist on pretending it has never been made.

    Keep in mind that what you are “fighting for” in these court cases and what Obama is “fighting for” in these court cases are two completely different things. You guys are fighting to see a birth certificate. He is fighting to preserve the foundational legal concept of “standing.”

    Were Obama to release even the most innocuous document in response to a frivolous or nuisance lawsuit such as these, a precedent would be set that eviscerates the concept of “standing” and creates a de facto judicial filibuster. All governmental action and resources could be overwhelmed in the courts by anybody with a word processor and an axe to grind.

    The entire issue of standing serves the critical purpose of ensuring that the courts are used only for the settling of genuine legal issues… not political vendettas.

    While you might find it frustrating, his obligations are somewhat more serious and significant than yours, and he has to keep his eye on the real issue, even if it is at some personal cost. He and his lawyers correctly understand that there is exactly nothing to be gained by releasing the long form birth certificate either legally or politically. Would it result in “one less reader for Phil?” Maybe… but who cares? Assuaging the concerns of conspiracy theorists has never been on the top 2,000 list of concerns for the defendants in any of these cases.

    I can see where it might be disastrous if he actually shows the real thing, but that’s surely not what you are talking about. Could you be talking about setting the precedent of proving your eligibility? I can see where that might be a problem. What in the hell is wrong with proving your eligibility???

    It has no more to do with proving eligibility than it has to do with determining what his eyeglass prescription might be.

    Understand that we already have more than two centuries of precedent on how we “prove” eligibility in this country, and it has never failed us. This is true even for the 35 or so of our Presidents that never had birth certificates at all. In Obama’s case, he has already provided more legal documentation than any other president in American history.

    And it is not simply a case of having provided “more.” He has in that process delivered absolute legal proof of his eligibility.

    A candidate is presumed to be exactly who he or she claims to be unless and until evidence is presented to contradict it. In more than a year of Birther hand wringing, not a single piece of evidence has ever been presented that contradicts these facts:

    Barack Obama is a natural-born American citizen. He is older than 35. he has lived in the US for at least 14 years.

    Nothing else is relevant.

  • 217
    HistorianDude
    July 7th, 2009 10:57

    Phil:

    At least you’re being intellectually honest. It’s simply too bad you have such rank disrespect for the rule of law.

    Wrong as usual, Phil.

    I have profound respect for the rule of law. What I do not respect is imaginary pseudolaw of the sort that you depend upon for nearly every legal opinion you present.

    I point out again that, regardless of what you imagine is or is not “respectful,” I have correctly called the result of the every legal decision made in this whole affair to this point, and you have not.

    All issues of “respect” aside, the paper trail shows that I actually understand the law… while you do not.

  • 218
    HistorianDude
    July 7th, 2009 11:11

    Phil:

    And, yet, you absolutely insist upon typing my site’s domain name into your favorite web browser and continually take the time to actually make comments on my postings.

    Perhaps you need a more modern web browser. I haven’t typed your domain name in months.

    That said… I note again that rather than address the subject you once more try to change subjects. You know Phil… if you have no response, perhaps you would be better served by not responding.

    Of course. Yet, the fact that eligibility cases, to date, have been dismissed is not synonymous with their being conspiracy theories.

    And you are the only one in this thread who ever said they were.

    Nice attack, Phil. Wrong hill.

    Also, regarding the concept that the eligibility question is a conspiracy theory. I simply fail to see how background documentation that, being unsealed, would show exactly who the President is should somehow be construed as conspiratorial.

    When I corrected Sharon 2 on this weird confusion you Birthers seem to have on what a “conspiracy theory” is, I assumed (wrongly it appears) that your silence meant you did not share it. But now we see that you have no idea what a “conspiracy theory” even is.

    A conspiracy theory is any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a “secret team” or “shadow government.” The Birther narrative is a conspiracy theory that tries to explain Obama’s presidency as the result of a secret plot… in many versions going all the way back to Obama’s grandparents decades before he was even born. You guys routinely include as members of the conspiracy almost every member of Congress, the judicial system, most organs of government to include the Justice Department, the SSS, the Republicans, the governments of multiple nations, even innocent hard working staffers in the Hawaii Department of Health.

    Releasing the documentation would not be “conspiratorial.” But your insistence that they are “sealed” is full blown conspiracy theory hoo-hah.

    If anything, the fact that folks such as yourself have a real issue with examining this President’s unreleased background documentation certainly gives credence to the argument that there is something to hide.

    Spoken exactly like the died-in-the-wool, paranoid, irrational conspiracy theorist you appear to be.

  • 219
    Appy American
    July 7th, 2009 11:31

    Brygenon, you all need to quit throwing out this canard of nobody checking Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton’s birth certificates. Chester Arthur was the only other candidate who had a British father, therefore none of the other candidates posed a problem for the voters of this country as pertains to eligibility. This candidate DID have a British father, supposedly, and thus the question of his fitness to serve this country. And as events have transpired in the last 6 months, the questions should have been asked more forcefully. But he was way too cool, could read a teleprompter very well and offered too many mortgage payments to too many fools who voted. I am not calling you a fool. You may have had other reasons for supporting this man. I don’t know. But I do know that the vast majority who voted for him had not ONE clue about what he wanted to accomplish and how he was going to do it. Sadly, the rest of the country will have to pay for their mistake.

  • 220
    Phil
    July 7th, 2009 13:40

    brygenon,

    we Americans are not letting your hate change how we treat the President.

    Hate? I didn’t know that questioning a President’s eligibility is synonymous with hate.

    Perhaps you could push back from the keyboard for a few moments, let go of some of your over-the-top bias, and realize that some of us have legitimate questions.

    -Phil

  • 221
    Phil
    July 7th, 2009 13:45

    HistorianDude,

    I have profound respect for the rule of law.

    …except in cases where the Constitution speaks about eligibility, right? You’ve already admitted that you’re OK that eligibility is not enforced.

    -Phil

  • 222
    Appy American
    July 7th, 2009 17:42

    Dude, I disagree with your assumptions, and despite all the crap you keep throwing on the wall, they are still just your assumptions. You are correct about one point, that being that this question is about 2 different things. You are wrong about what those 2 things are. We are wanting to see PROOF of his eligibility as determined by his being born in Hawaii. He is trying to keep that from happening. He could care less about standing or any other legalese you want to hit the wall with. As to his British father and dual citizenship, I have an opinion about that but it just my opinion. I believe that it is an important question that should be decided by the Supreme Court.
    As to the courts and general legal issues, what could be more important than actually providing proof that you are in fact eligible, which he has not done. He has given nothing that will actually provide that proof, and please don’t throw that factcheck thingy out here again. His only “obligation” is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Anything else is primarily for his own personal trophy case.
    You are correct in your statement that “he” has nothing to gain by releasing his bc. However he has much to lose while we the people have much to gain. Never in my lifetime has there ever been a need to question a candidate so thoroughly as this one. Nobody has ever had to question a candidates loyalty to the United States of America before this man. Your support for him notwithstanding, please explain where in the past this country has had to deal with the constitutional question of eligibility such as this man’s eligibility, or lack thereof. And which precedent was it that gives this man a free ride as to providing said proof of eligibility?
    And your next to the last sentence is partly correct, partly opinion. Please quit trying to put out opinions as fact. I will give you age and 14 years, but it is simply your personal opinion that he is a natural born citizen. He will not even make that statement. He claims “native” citizenship, probably from that constitutional scholar gig, which he should know is not the same as a natural born citizen, your opinion to the contrary.
    And finally throwing snide remarks around about me and others who believe an injustice has occured only makes you look silly, not the other way around.

  • 223
    brygenon
    July 7th, 2009 21:42

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    we Americans are not letting your hate change how we treat the President.

    Hate? I didn’t know that questioning a President’s eligibility is synonymous with hate.

    The questions were answered long ago, and you guys are only fooling yourselves.

    Phil, you featured an article trying to argue that President Obama has narcissistic personality disorder. No-Drama Obama, renowned for his even temperament, suffers from NPD? Really? The President of the United States thinks he’s a lot more important than he is? People see right through it, so you might as well just call him uppity.

    Earlier today you told HistorianDude, “Don’t be so ugly in the future on my site.” Wow. Comments comparing President Obama to Hitler, claiming his he’s a Muslim terrorists, or lamenting how, “The Blacks now have the power from Hussein down to Holder etc.” — those you approve without any such note. It’s HistorianDude’s arguments that you find ugly.

  • 224
    brygenon
    July 7th, 2009 21:52

    Appy American says:

    Brygenon, you all need to quit throwing out this canard of nobody checking Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton’s birth certificates. Chester Arthur was the only other candidate who had a British father, therefore none of the other candidates posed a problem for the voters of this country as pertains to eligibility.

    If you’re just relying on ordinary biographical sources to tell you about Ronald Reagan, then look up Obama’s bio and we’re done.

    If that’s not enough, how do you really know who Ronald Reagan’s parents were? Did you see the official legal records? How can you be certain that Nelle Reagan didn’t take a secret trip to Kenya in 1911, to have baby Ronald there?

  • 225
    Phil
    July 7th, 2009 22:19

    brygenon,

    The questions were answered long ago, and you guys are only fooling yourselves.

    Who’s the bigger fool — the one who is promulgating controversial questions or the one foolish enough to think they can derail the questioning?

    I’m not surprised by your personal accusations against me. You’ve long since formed your opinion and apparently you’re foolish enough to think that somehow folks like me are going to be convinced by folks like you to stop questioning.

    Nevertheless, as I always say, it’s your prerogative to think and believe as you will.

    -Phil

  • 226
    brygenon
    July 8th, 2009 02:33

    Phil wrote:

    You’ve long since formed your opinion and apparently you’re foolish enough to think that somehow folks like me are going to be convinced by folks like you to stop questioning.

    Ah, no, I never said that I expect to convince you. As I’ve explained, I like to put the debunk as close as possible to the bunk.

  • 227
    Appy American
    July 8th, 2009 14:47

    Brygenon, you’re spitting in the wind with this line of thinking concerning other presidents BCs. As I said, it has never been a problem before now, with the exception of Chester Arthur. He was able to keep his non-NBC status hid as has the current occupant. But, time wounds all heels and we expect this one will be wounded by the BC controversy, your paralogism notwithstanding.

  • 228
    HistorianDude
    July 9th, 2009 20:07

    Phil:

    I have profound respect for the rule of law.

    …except in cases where the Constitution speaks about eligibility, right? You’ve already admitted that you’re OK that eligibility is not enforced.

    It is bad enough when your lies are subtle. Now you’re not even trying. You know full well that I never said I’m okay “that eligibility is not enforced.”

    You really need to work harder to remember the questions you asked.

  • 229
    HistorianDude
    July 9th, 2009 20:31

    Appy American:

    Dude, I disagree with your assumptions, and despite all the crap you keep throwing on the wall, they are still just your assumptions.

    Whatever would lead you to believe they are “assumptions?” I guess that you have not read any of the actual documents filed in court by the defendants’ lawyers. You should take some time off and do that. Then you will no longer be under so many mistaken impressions.

    As to the courts and general legal issues, what could be more important than actually providing proof that you are in fact eligible, which he has not done. He has given nothing that will actually provide that proof, and please don’t throw that factcheck thingy out here again.

    And with those two sentences you prove beyond doubt that you would not benefit from any additional “proof” since you already have rejected what is, by law, absolute legal proof of his eligibility.

    Run away from the “factcheck thingy” all you want. But recognize that by doing so you are only demonstrating that you really don’t care about proof of his eligibility one bit. You’ve had it for more than a year.

    You are correct in your statement that “he” has nothing to gain by releasing his bc. However he has much to lose while we the people have much to gain. Never in my lifetime has there ever been a need to question a candidate so thoroughly as this one.

    Why? What makes this one different? Hmmmmmmmmm?

    Nobody has ever had to question a candidates loyalty to the United States of America before this man.

    Nobody has to question Obama’s loyalty either. people question it because they choose to. What about him is different that would make you question his loyalty?

    Your support for him notwithstanding, please explain where in the past this country has had to deal with the constitutional question of eligibility such as this man’s eligibility, or lack thereof.

    Never. And not now, either.

    And which precedent was it that gives this man a free ride as to providing said proof of eligibility?

    Well… that’s a whole ‘nother question, isn’t it?

    Had he followed the precedent of every single Presidential candidate prior to him, he wouldn’t have shown you the COLB either. He has provided more prrof of eligibility than any other president in all of United States history.

    And your next to the last sentence is partly correct, partly opinion. Please quit trying to put out opinions as fact. I will give you age and 14 years, but it is simply your personal opinion that he is a natural born citizen. He will not even make that statement. He claims “native” citizenship, probably from that constitutional scholar gig, which he should know is not the same as a natural born citizen, your opinion to the contrary.

    Listen to yourself and think for just a moment. You are asserting that he is too careful as a “constitutional scholar” to ever say he is “natural born citizen,” but not so careful that he won’t run for President of the United States? What do you imagine his thinking would be here?

    “Oh, sure, I’ll fraudulently run for POTUS as a natural born citizen, but I’ll never actually say I’m one, because, gosh, that would be wrong!”

    You guys grasp for the most pathetic of straws in the face of the simple fact that all the evidence is against you, no court will accept your silly cases, nobody in government or the main stream media takes you seriously, and even your own lawyers are suing each other.

    And finally throwing snide remarks around about me and others who believe an injustice has occured only makes you look silly, not the other way around.

    I do not know how old you are, AA. But someday you will be old enough to realize that when one’s position is ridiculous, you should expect ridicule. If you think I look silly, good for you. I hope you would take that as the one small victory you will ever have as a Birther.

    Because I have also been correct in every prediction I have ever made concerning every decision made in every court regarding the Birther movement so far. If you go back and read some of my old debates with Phil on the Constitutionality of the “citizen’s grand juries” for example, you will see that I could have written Judge Lamberth’s recent slam dunk of them myself.

    I’d rather look silly and be right than be a dignified looking loser.

    How about you?

  • 230
    Messenger
    July 10th, 2009 18:52

    Of course,the judges and so-called Representatives in Dc never tell people the whole truth,which is that anyone can send a letter to Charles or Mario,and they can concur with it in a foreward and sendi it to the courts,whether they are dumped or not.Just as they ignore to explain how we lost our standing and how the government came to have sobereign and absloute immunity.Some of us do know.The pseudohistorians here are defending the trashing of the Constitution,not trying to educate poeple aes to how it was lost,and that is what this all comes down to you know.Not imperfect lawsuits or improper jurisdiction or standing,The judge in the GJ deal was erroneous in how he explained the GJs,though was correct on the Presentments.The “actual” GJ comment was ludicrous.The CJs are “actual” as well and never expected the Presentments to be enforced by the judge,but rather reviewed and appropriate action taken.It’s over for this nation.There is precendent for Mario to overcome the immuity claim by the defense,but the standing was taken away in 1946.

  • 231
    Appy American
    July 12th, 2009 21:10

    Dude, What particular documents have defendant’s lawyers filed? I have seen nothing but an alleged certification of live birth. A certification that has been discredited. The fact that you don’t want to accept it does not mean the issues brought forth are not correct.
    How is this candidate different? Start with being born a British citizen. Have you read nothing of the Founders belief that a person born to a foreign national while a citizen, is not a natural born citizen? Then we can get into his associates. You are known by the company you keep. If your idea of a loyal American is one who studies under and believes in communist sympathizers, I quit this discussion. Frank Marshal Davis, Saul Alinsky, Bill & Berna Dohrn, his endorsement by the New Party in 1995, Cornell West, Charles Ogletree, Robert Malley, Rashid khalidi, & the CPUSA who endorsed him. Not as damning, but certainly noteworthy were his decision to attend Trinity UMC and be counseled by Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger. None as a single issue would be a killer, but taken as a whole, convinces me that this man doesn’t have the same views as I do about what this country is and where it should be headed. Surely, surely you don’t agree with this group of people.
    His obvious respect for the Muslim faith. From talking about the 5:00 prayer call being the loveliest sound on earth, to his bowing and scraping to the Saudi Arabian king, to giving his first interview to an arabic site, and most galling to me, apologizing to ever tin pot dictator in the world. This you may agree with, but I do not.
    As to what was he thinking? Damn, I know I’m not an NBC, but if I claim I’m a native, there’s a sh*t pot full of peeople who won’t know the difference and will vote for me. And guess what? He was right. I’ll give him credit for that. There are way too many people who vote who could care less about he wanted to do and promised to try to do to this country. Hell, he’s black, let’s vote for him. And if you deny this, what more can I say?
    What specific proof of eligibility has he shown? Specifically.
    And finally this. I’m old enough to have served in the USAF 1965-1969. I’ve voted in every presidential race since Johnson and never have I seen as big a clusterf*ck as this president. My position on his eligibility is not ridiculous. The fact that every candidate before this election were all NBCs should have had no effect on the scrutiny this candidate should have received based on his known associates if nothing else. The media bias and the medias lack of effort in finding ANYTHING about this candidate was directly responsible for his election. Surely you won’t deny this. Had the media put 1/3 the effort into researching him as they did Sarah Palin the outcome would have been decidedly different. Surely you will admit this. I am old enough to know that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. BHO’s a duck.

  • 232
    Sunnstarr
    September 3rd, 2009 01:44

    Something of Interest, posted elsewhere on the Net:

    “Discovery hearing re. Obama’s Kenyan BC, request for depositions of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates scheduled for September 8th, 8am.

    08/21/2009 44 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER SETTING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 HEARING ONMOTIONS: (See document for
    details.) In summary, the Court sets for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, (1) the Discovery Motion, (2) the Service Notice, and (3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CM/ECF Filer or PACER Login

    Notice:
    This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged

    This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.