Drake v. Obama: C-SPAN, LA Times Coverage of 9th Circuit Oral Arguments

On Monday, May 2, 2011, oral arguments were heard on the appeal of Drake v. Obama (some history is also under Barnett v. Obama) at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Los Angeles Times has coverage, and the Ventura County Tea Party has an opinion piece from someone who was in the Court room.


I disagree with the opinion of the VC Tea Party individual with respect to the Judges “badgering” anyone. In my opinion, Mr. Kreep needed to stay with the standing question and should have performed sufficient research to know whether or not his (Mr. Kreep’s) perspective was correct. It may not have been, based upon (1) his client’s class of ability to bring the question; and (2) the timing that the case was brought before the Court.

Here’s the problem, per excellent questions by the Ninth District panel: If you’re not a candidate for the election in question, and if you haven’t filed a question with the Court during the actual campaign (e.g.: prior to the presidential candidate becoming a President-elect and, subsequently, President), there may not be a whole lot that anyone can do, short of pressuring Congress to actually do something about the question.

Having said all that, it also appears that the Judges asked the US Attorney a number of very good questions, definitely worth watching.

There are two questions at hand — one factual, and one legal. The factual question is where Mr. Obama was born; it would appear that he was physically born in Honolulu, Hawaii. The legal question that remains, at least in my mind, is whether or not both of his parents have to be US citizens for Mr. Obama to be a natural born citizen with respect to the presidency.

We know that Mr. Obama Sr. never naturalized as an American citizen, and we further know that as Kenyan citizen of a British protectorate, Mr. Obama Sr.’s children — no matter where, geographically, they were physically born — were British subjects until their respective ages of majority whereby they had the opportunity to let such British citizenship lapse, declare British citizenship, and/or take on other citizenship.

My question: can someone be born on US soil and, under any other circumstance become a natural born citizen, while at the same time taking on the citizenship of another country, and this taking on of additional citizenship does not affect their right to be a natural born citizen? If the answer is yes, then Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the US and is therefore constitutionally qualified to be President.


Eligibility Media Update: LTC Lakin Released; Drake v. Obama; Lots of Videos

Lots of updates occurred over the weekend; let’s get to it:

Major News Items


Ambassador Alan Keyes once again does a fabulous job of describing the eligibility issue:

Donald Trump responds to Greta van Susteren regarding Karl Rove and eligibility:

Trump is also interviewed by Anderson Cooper:

Franklin Graham is also questioning Mr. Obama, and the White House said they didn’t like his “preposterous” statements:

Trump has some things to say about Robert de Niro and praises Franklin Graham:

Louisiana State Senator A. G. Crowe quite graciously and presciently responds to CNN’s Randi Kaye over his State’s eligibility bill:

Lone GOP Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom was interviewed on WABC 770AM in New York City and thinks that whatever information — such as Mr. Obama’s father — can be found on the long-form birth certificate is what Mr. Obama doesn’t want known (MailOnline coverage):



phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com


#eligibility: Keyes v. Bowen Appealed: Precedent Exists for Courts to Qualify Public Executives

In a posting regarding attorney Gary Kreep’s appeal of Keyes v. Bowen to the 3rd Appellate District Court in California (a case different from attorney Dr. Orly Tait’s case, also on appeal), WorldNetDaily reports that there is precedent for Court removal of a governmental chief executive.

Longtime readers will recall when I last reported on this case that the Plaintiffs did not have all of their research in order to prove to the Court that such eligibility petitions were not unprecedented. In fact, at the time, Ballot-Access.org reported the following:

On March 13, California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney tentatively ruled against Alan Keyes, in the lawsuit concerning whether President Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and whether the California Secretary of State should have put him on the ballot. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 34-2008-8000096-CU-WM-GDS. The 6-page opinion seems to strengthen the rights of political parties to place anyone they wish on the November ballot, regardless of that candidate’s qualifications.

The decision says, “Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the party’s selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State…Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”

In 1968, the California Secretary of State refused to list Eldridge Cleaver on the November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party. Cleaver and PFP sued the Secretary of State, but the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, by a 6-1 vote. Cleaver and the party then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but that Court refused, 393 U.S. 810 (October 7, 1968). In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit. The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite, so he wasn’t able to establish the existence of this 40-year old precedent that does seem to give the Secretary of State the authority to refuse a party’s choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications. Keyes will appeal and his appeal will include the Cleaver precedent citation.

Eldridge Cleaver had been removed from the California ballot because the Secretary of State had learned that he was only 33 years old. [emphasis mine]

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

As WND states (and somewhat reiterating what I’ve quoted from Ballot-Access):

“In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president,” the brief, being filed this week, argues.

“Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver, unsuccessfully, challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States, which affirmed the actions.”

The other is a court precedent in which the governor of North Dakota was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution’s eligibility requirements. …

Kreep alleges the dismissal of the state case by Judge Michael Kenny was in error because the defendants “failed to establish that there was no triable cause of action on the critical constitutional issues of whether Obama has met the eligibility requirements to serve as president of the United States and whether Bowen has the duty, as chief elections officer of the state of California, to verify the eligibility of candidates for federal office running in the state of California.”

The president’s lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don’t have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution’s provision that president’s must be removed by impeachment, which rests with Congress.

In one case, the president’s lawyers prominently argued, “The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.

“The examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress,” the president’s lawyers argued.

But the issue, however, already has been adjudicated by courts, and the resolution is that courts do have the authority to review eligibility and even remove an ineligible chief executive, the appeal brief cites.

“Even though Obama was elected to this office, this ineligibility constitutes a legal disability for the office of president of the United States,” the brief states. “In ‘State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie,’ after Thomas H. Moodie was duly elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor,” the brief explains. …

The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.

“We’re seeking to bar anyone from going on the presidential ballot in 2012 unless they can prove that they’re eligible,” Kreep told WND.

“Appellants contend that Bowen has a duty to ensure that all candidates in the state of California, for both federal and state offices, meet the eligibility requirements for the offices sought, that Bowen did not fulfill said duty, and that a court determination is needed to ensure that the California secretary of state comply with this duty in the future,” the brief said. …

Further, courts can address the problem.

While the dispute has “significant political overtones,” it is, nonetheless, “an issue which the court can make a determination on, because the requirements are clearly stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution and courts routinely decide questions of law and of fact such as the issue in this case.”

“A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people, as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States,” it continues.

“Respondents denied that this Cleaver case had any relevance to the underlying issue … Similarly, in 1984, the Peace and Freedom Party listed Mr. Larry Holmes as an eligible candidate in the presidential primary. When the then SOS checked his eligibility, it was found that Mr. Holmes was, similarly, not eligible, and Mr. Holmes was removed from the ballot… It this case, we have a similar situation in that the Democratic Party submitted the name of Obama as a candidate for president,” the brief argues.

First, “significant political overtunes” must be irrelevant for the Judiciary, else no decision could ever be made on any constitutional question. Therefore, to me, this is a moot point.

Yet, let’s get back to the bigger issue of eligibility and the Courts.

This political question with respect to the Judiciary can be broken down into a number of legitimate points:

  1. Can the Judiciary determine whether or not a candidate is eligible for a sought-after office?
  2. Can the Judiciary issue an opinion that would subsequently cause a candidate to be ineligible for such office?
  3. To what extent is the Judiciary tasked with enforcing the constitutional question of eligibility?

In this citizen reporter’s non-attorney opinion, the answer is that the Judiciary does have a role in making sure that the law is enforced, particularly by those other branches that are tasked with such a duty.

Remember, I have repeatedly stated that since there currently exists no law that enforces presidential or vice presidential constitutional eligibility nor to what degree it ought to be enforced, it would be practically impossible for the Court to issue an order against a non-existent law. Therefore, if the Judiciary is to be petitioned regarding eligibility, another route must be used instead; this posting could be such an opening.

On the one hand, we are told by many a Defendant in various eligibility cases that the Secretary of State has, effectively, no discretion in determining whether or not a candidate could be placed on the ballot. As this posting shows, the Defendants have either been lying or ignorant (then the question becomes whether such ignorance is willful or not) when there is already such existing precedent.

Further, it is also a contention that “only” (“the exclusive means”) the Congress and/or the Electoral College is tasked by the Constitution and/or federal law for vetting a candidate. Again, precedent clearly shows that this is not the case. Furthermore, any Defendant would be hard-pressed to find any verbiage (outside of their albeit learned opinions) that specifically states that the Joint Session of Congress and/or the Electoral College are “only,” “solely,” or “exclusively” the routes for answering eligibility questions. Incidentally, no opposition commenter on this site can find such exclusive verbiage either, outside of their own worthy opinions.

Lastly, there is the issue of removal. As I’ve stated numerous times on my site — and as the singular point upon which the opposition and I agree — the Judiciary cannot lawfully remove a sitting President, and it’s just as unlikely that the branch could remove a lower chief executive. Nevertheless, making a determination as to the eligibility of a President is something that can be quintessentially within its jurisdiction, where the Legislative branch would subsequently be tasked with such official removal.

In my view, what Mr. Kreep must show the Court is how deficient the Secretary of State for California was in making a determination for whether or not Mr. Obama should have been placed on the ballot; he might even ask her upon what basis did she make her determination. Did she use the Internet to vet Mr. Obama? Did she even vet Obama at all?

Either way, clear precedent exists that her very office had previously vetted candidates. Based on what we know today, it’s a shame that such vetting — whether it resulted positively or negatively — did not occur.

It’s also exceedingly obvious that her office’s finger-pointing back to the Democrat party is a complete ruse.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:


Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Photo courtesy OrlyTaitzSite.com

#eligibility: No Deal Response; More States Create Bills; Arizona Responds

Thursday, January 21, 2010 Update:

Commenter “slcraig” received the following response from sources in Arizona via email:

“To: SL Craig

Thank you so much for your great efforts to assist us in our understanding(s) as again evidenced by the detail of what you wrote below.

In my prepared statement which will be delivered before the committee(s) of the Az. Legislature, I do cite Vattel and the four Supreme Court cases that both you and the Post & Email (which I have mostly read) have mentioned. However, your summaries of them below are so precise and succinct that understandings become even easier.

I think the biggest matter you have raised for us is whether or not to go more than “halfway” as you put it and place the actual definition of natural born citizen directly into our proposed legislation HB2441


Back on Friday, January 8, Georgia GOP Representative and gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal had sent a letter to the President, presumably to ask him about his birth certificate (to date, the actual content of that letter is still unknown).

Today, at a University of Georgia gubernatorial debate, Mr. Deal downplayed both the letter and the entire eligibility question. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

– The next shot came from state Rep. Austin Scott of Tifton, who said it was “childish” to question President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. That, of course, was aimed at U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal of Gainesville, who has written a letter to the White House on that very same topic.

Deal responded that he had no interest in Obama’s birth certificate, and that his letter was “not an issue in the governor’s race.” The congressman said his letter only asked Obama to “tell me where I can refer the people” who are asking him questions.

Obama had not answered, he noted.

The Athens Banner-Herald reported more specifics from the Congressman:

Deal, who represents North Georgia in Congress, sent Obama a letter in December asking him to address lingering concerns that he actually was born in Kenya and thus is constitutionally barred from being president.

“I think that is a reasonable proposition, and certainly something I think the president should respond to, although at this point, he has not,” Deal said.

Deal said he was responding to constituents’ questions, and the letter should not be an issue in a state-level campaign.

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

At the State level, Arizona Republican State Representative Judy Burges and 39 other State Legislators had filed a candidate eligibility bill for consideration of the 2010 Legislature. Now, as WorldNetDaily reports, several other States are also considering various eligibility initiatives:

The demand for documentation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is surging, with lawmakers in several states now working on legislation that could be used to require future presidential candidates to reveal precisely how they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born citizen.”

WND already has reported on a bill co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers in Arizona who want to require candidates not only to submit the information, but state officials to independently verify the accuracy.

Bill sponsor Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she already has started getting questions from other states who want details about the proposal.

A separate proposal has been created by a freedom of information action group in New York state, and now the National Conference of State Legislatures, which monitors and tabulates the work of legislative bodies, confirms through its database that several other plans are in the works.

Some of the proposals are very clear even without the full text. In New Hampshire, for example, a pending plan would require “certified copies of birth certificates for nominees for president and vice president.”

Others are a little more oblique. In Georgia, for example, lawmakers propose a bill “relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, so as to require each candidate for public office to be in compliance with certain disclosure requirements.”

There is no definitive word on what that would mean to presidential candidates.

An Indiana proposal is equally unclear, because it “authorizes a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility to seek an office to be filed by a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election.” It could apply only to local elections.

In Virginia, a summary says the proposal “provides that candidates shall provide evidence of their qualifications for office to have their names printed on the ballot. The State Board of Elections shall provide a list of acceptable forms of evidence.”

And in the New York state plan proposed by a freedom of information organization to state lawmakers would provide that “an individual seeking placement on the New York State’s election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.”

WND followed up on legislator thoughts regarding the Arizona bill:

In Arizona, state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.

“It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen,” she told the Arizona Capitol Times.

If states start adopting such election requirements, their laws possibly could have an impact similar to federal legislation, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.

As referenced, above, the Database of Election Reform Legislation is relatively simple to use in looking up bills. Go to the link and then select “Candidates-Qualifications for Office” in the “Subtopic” multi-select form.

The New York proposition reads as follows:

The Accountability Bill

A Bill To Be Entitled

New York State Presidential Candidate Qualification Verification
Accountability To NYS Citizens Act

1 Section 1: An individual seeking placement (ISP) on New York State’s election ballot(s) for the

2 office of President or Vice President of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per

3 requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

4 A) Hard-copy proof is to be submitted to the New York State (NYS) Board of Elections

5 Executive Director(s) office.

6 B) Determination of age, natural born citizenship and past fourteen years residency is by

7 information on or within an individual’s official birth certificate, school and work records, social

8 security information, documentation of international travel history that the ISP knows of to

9 the best of his/her ability and his/her past seven years of tax records.

10 (1) Written and signed permission by an ISP must be granted to the NYS Board of Elections

11 Executive Director(s) office to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office from various

12 sources listed within the documents.

13 C) The NYS Board of Elections Executive Director(s) office is to make its determination

14 within four weeks from the date of an individual’s full submission of documents, confirmation of

15 such full submission by the ISP and his/her signed statement, granting the office

16 permission to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office, as per Section 1 B (1).

17 D) With the exclusion of social security numbers, contained on documents, all pertinent

18 information obtained and pertinent findings that are obtained from such documents of

19 an ISP who is approved are to be made available to the public for viewing, in order for

20 the office’s approval to be enacted and the ISP to be placed on New York State’s ballot(s),

21 pending the fulfillment(s) of other current and future New York State requirement(s).

22 (1) An ISP must first view the information and findings of the NYS Board of Elections

23 Executive Director(s) office that it deems pertinent and approve such findings to be made

24 public, in order for such to be made available to the public for viewing.

25 E) Compliance with this act and the burden of proof of eligibility is fully on the ISP.

26 F) Disputes are to be handled through the New York State courts, with all legalities applicable.

27 Section 2: This act will be instituted in the State of New York.

28 Section 3: This act is to be instituted on or before November 1, 2010.

Written by Debra J.M. Smith – September 17, 2009
References: The U.S. Constitution

Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, has announced that attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed an Opening Brief with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – U.S. 3rd Circuit Appeal – Appellant’s Opening Brief – Filed 19 Jan 2010

Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed the Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al lawsuit appeal. The Brief was filed with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA. See this link to download and read it:

We look forward to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing this matter and ordering a trial on the merits as to the Article II Constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

We say Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a Usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic.

“We the People” will be heard on this matter! As the People in Massachusetts have demonstrated, “We the People” are the Sovereigns in this country and the Constitution is the fundamental law of our nation, not Obama or Congress. We will not be silenced.  The chair Obama sits in in the Oval Office is not his throne. It is the People’s seat too.  And Obama despite all his obfuscations to date must prove to Constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that seat.

This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for President. Obama at birth was born British and a dual-citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenship during his life-time. He’s a Citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a “natural born Citizen” with sole allegiance andUnity of Citizenship at Birth to the USA as is required per the Constitution per the intent of our founders and the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional standards.

Attorney Apuzzo will comment more on this Appellant’s Brief in the next few days.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:


Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Eligibility Update: TN Grand Jury Presentation; Update: A Second Treason Allegation?

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 update:

Retired Lieutenant Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III posted his own update per his new site, TheJagHunter. The following are pertinent excerpts:

Interactions with the Monroe County Grand Jury “committee” yesterday were most unsatisfying, however…

TREASON is alive as a criminal accusation naming OBAMA! It was agreed yesterday the crime of TREASON CAN BE advanced against OBAMA in a Tennessee State criminal trial. It was established also the formal accusation for TREASON CAN BE advanced into a Federal criminal trial received from Tennessee State.

But we’re not there yet.

The Monroe County Grand Jury “committee” was comprised of four men. Gary Pettway was absent. Monroe County Deputy Sheriff Byrum was present. The lead Juryman, standing at a speakers podium to my left was in contact with the County Prosecutor’s Office by cell phone.

It took 45-minutes for clarity and focus to take a seat in the room and participate in the deliberations.

The four Jurymen were not clear about the criminal actors or the particular crimes the four Jurors were to inspect.

There was a pointed conversation about what the four Jurors had been tasked to do. …

“Coach” was told the four men were to consider only whether Gary Pettway (Foreman), and Assistant District Attorney James Stutts obstructed efforts on 3 September and 1 October 2009 to report criminal conduct to the full Grand Jury.

TREASON and FORGERY were the two specific criminal acts the four Jurors scrutinized as it went to the obstruction of STUTTS and PETTWAY. …

The end result is this: The STUTTS and PETTWAY issue moves to the side. Interesting, but no longer relevant. Their obstructions are cleared away.

It is not clear when the full Monroe Grand Jury (numbering thirteen) will sit to receive the document record proving OBAMA’S criminal escapades. I’ll tell you all I know when I know. Updates will be posted hear. …

The four Grand Jurymen openly discussed yesterday a second criminal complaint from a Monroe County man naming OBAMA in commission of TREASON. The committee was unclear regarding the status of the second criminal accusation.

And, unfortunately, it’s too bad that there are those individuals on this planet that simply cannot find any way to agree to disagree with the LTCDR:

This comment came in to The JAG HUNTER yesterday afternoon at 1334 hours local (1:34 PM):

“I’m sure glad I live in a different state than you do.

“If I lived near you, I’d take the time to make a special trip to put a bullet right between your TREASONOUS eyes.

“I sure hope you (expletives) America-hating tea-bag waving traitors hurry up and have your civil war. I want to be the first kid on the block with a confirmed kill of a Republican!!!”

I’ll moderate this comment by reporting it today to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Monroe County Sheriff and local police.

Continue reading “Eligibility Update: TN Grand Jury Presentation; Update: A Second Treason Allegation?”

Eligibility Update: Ankeny v. Daniels and Citizenship; Sen. Frist on “Birthers;” Kerchner Ad

Recently, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Elaine Brown affirmed the lower Court’s decision regarding Ankeny v. Daniels and set off some interesting dissent regarding the natural born citizenship issue.

Attorney Leo Donofrio posted the following in response to the Judge’s opinion:

Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks.  This Indiana decision is pure evil.  They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008.  Before that time, it was not known.   The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]

The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause.  The errors of fact and law incorporated into the decision serve as a beacon outlining the desperation certain government factions now face.  Obviously, the British birth issue is getting on their nerves and this was clearly an attempt to derail further national discussion on this issue. …

Their main argument is to state that citizens are only born or naturalized.  That fails to take into account the framers (and other original citizens) who themselves were neither born citizens nor were they naturalized.  So the Court proves itself a bit wonky on that point.  Still, I certainly do not dispute that today all US citizens are either born or naturalized.  But that’s not the point.  The necessary evaluation requires consideration of the various types of born citizenship.  And on this important issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals has failed.

Born citizens can be broken up into three groups:

Continue reading “Eligibility Update: Ankeny v. Daniels and Citizenship; Sen. Frist on “Birthers;” Kerchner Ad”

Barnett v. Obama: Case Dismissed; “A Teachable Moment”

Today, US District Judge David Carter dismissd the eligibility case Barnett v. Obama, ultimately taking into conclusive account the Defense’s motion to dismiss. Judge Carter issued a 30-page opinion, below. “Opposition” site NativeBornCitizen covers a number of media links about this case.

As Mr. Obama has quipped in the past, I think that this opinion provides for a very poignant “teachable moment” regarding the eligibility movement. As a concerned citizen who has officially been opining about the eligibility movement since October 24, 2008, I am going to address some issues brought up in the opinion that are very likely to show that I am an Equal Opportunity Offender ™; when you’re as interested as I am in getting to the truth, you’re bound to upset individuals on all sides of an issue.

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD

Let’s begin on page 23:

Continue readingBarnett v. Obama: Case Dismissed; “A Teachable Moment””

Kerchner v. Obama: Case Appealed to Third Circuit

Attorney Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, yesterday officially filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA.

Mr. Apuzzo has also produced the following press release:

27 October 2009, 2:45 P.M. EDT

CONTACT: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
Tel:  732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: apuzzo@erols.com

Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit Decision Appealed to Federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA

JAMESBURG, NJ – (Oct. 27, 2009) – Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed an appeal with the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, on behalf of plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ; challenging the recent decision of Judge Jerome  Simandle, Federal District Court, Camden, NJ, dismissing the lawsuit charging that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records, and has not conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military.

Continue readingKerchner v. Obama: Case Appealed to Third Circuit”

Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records?

It is already known that nobody has stepped forward to vouch for witnessing or being connected to Mr. Obama’s birth as alleged to have been in some Hawaiian hospital. And now it appears that nobody seems to while some individuals associated with Columbia University seem to remember their fellow classmate at Columbia University (see the mixed and varied commentary associated with this posting), nobody appears to be able to vouch for his records.

The Anti-Mullah blog posted this story last Sunday; I did some further research to find out from whence they pulled much of the verbiage in their posting.

First, Reason.com posted an article back in September, 2008 in which they interviewed the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Wayne Allen Root (poignantly excerpted quotes):

Root is no fan of the Democratic nominee: “A vote for Obama is four years of Karl Marx, and no one should be happy about that,” he told us and a few genial young libertarian activists over cocktails. “He’s a communist! I don’t care what anybody says. The guy’s a communist…. And his mother was a card-carrying communist, and he says she’s the most important person in his entire life; he learned everything from her.”

But the thing Root really wanted to talk about was Obama’s grades. Specifically, he was willing to bet a million dollars that he earned a better grade point average at Columbia than his old classmate, and that the only reason Obama went on to Harvard Law School was the color of his skin. …

“I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! … Where was Obama? He wasn’t an outgoing young man, no one ever heard of him. …

Class of ’83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don’t get more exact than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was.” …

There’s much more at the posting.

It also appears that The New York Times had interviewed Mr. Root during the next month:

Neither one knew their famous Columbia classmate, Barack Obama. “I’ve not only not met him,” Mr. Root said, “I’ve not met anybody who met him.”

Continue reading “Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records?”

Barnett v. Obama: Judge Confirms Hearing Dates; Official Transcript Added

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Update:

On the same day as this posting was originally published (10/5/09), Judge Carter ordered the remainder dates for this case to be finalized, per the Civil Minutes, below:

Barnett v. Obama Minute Order

Dr. Alan Keyes — one of the key Plaintiffs in this case — says on his blog that the case is moving forward and has not been stopped by a motion to dismiss. WorldNetDaily interviewed both the Plaintiffs and the Defense and they also seemed to confirm that no dismissals of any sort have yet to be granted.

Continue readingBarnett v. Obama: Judge Confirms Hearing Dates; Official Transcript Added”