While we await any word from the Supreme Court concerning Lightfoot v. Bowen (the disposition of which could come as soon as 2 – 3pm ET today), the following is a report from the Star-Telegram.com:
A district judge threw out a case Thursday filed by a Round Rock women alleging that President Barack Obama has not proven he is a natural born citizen, one of several such cases filed around the country in recent months.
Jody Brockhausen, who runs the Web site, obamaverifybirthplace.com, wrote in her lawsuit that the Texas Secretary of State’s Office should decertify Obama’s name from the state’s 2008 election ballot unless it receives documents proving that Obama was born in Hawaii.
A Williamson County district judge dismissed the case arguing that Brockhausen did not have standing.
Brockhausen alleged in her lawsuit that Obama may be unqualified to be president because it is unclear if he meets the Constitution’s citizenship requirements.
Conservative activists raised questions about the circumstances of Obama’s birth last year and filed lawsuits in several states. The Supreme Court has declined at least eight appeals asserting that Obama is ineligible to be president due to doubts about his birth.
Obama’s campaign released his birth certificate in June. It showed that he was born in a Honolulu hospital at 7:42 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961. Hawaii officials have said the birth certificate is authentic.
A call to Brockhausen was not returned Thursday.
Ed Hale, a conservative activist and rancher from the Texas Panhandle town of Wellington, has continually questioned Obama’s eligibility, first on his Web site devoted to Hillary Clinton supporters backing John McCain, and more recently on his online radio Web site, plainsradio.com. Hale said he and other activists have spent thousands of dollars helping fund lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility around the country. Even if every suit is dismissed, they will never accept Obama as president, he said.
“He’s not a bad man,” Hale said. “He’s just not a natural-born citizen. He does not qualify according to what the Constitution says.” [highlighted emphases mine; corrections in Ms. Brockhausen's Letter to the Editor, below]
Update: Jody Brockhausen had the following inspiring words to share:
There are some very good developments which can be shared later, but just so you know, Dr. Orly Taitz was present in court with me and represented me as my attorney. Isn’t that just amazing?! She flew in at 12:20 AM Thurs. morning and a volunteer from Plains Radio’s chat room came forward after about five minutes following Ed Hale posting the need in the chat room. They arrived at my house at 4 AM and we arrived in court at 8:50 AM.
The details of the case you can discuss with Orly if she wishes.
There was a good showing of fellow patriots who listed to my interview on Plains Radio Wednesday at 7 PM. Many people could not believe Orly Taitz was coming to Texas to help me with my case. It was just a miracle that is all there is to it!
Update: Thanks to commenter “Poppet” for pointing the following out from Dr. Taitz (probably what Jody was referring to in terms of additional info, above):
I wanted to thank everybody for concern and well wishes. I just got ome from TX after some 48 hours with only 3 hours of sleep.
TX judge Burt Carnes has allowed me to represent Jody Brockhausen against Secretary of State of TX, he has signed my application to represent her Pro Hac Vice (out of state attorney), but his decision was that he has no jurisdiction to hear the case in the state court.
It looked like his mind was made even before the hearing. He asked Assistant Attorney General how much time does she need, she stated 15-20 minutes, his response was that he needs only 3 minutes. He didn’t even ask the plaintiff if she needs any time. When I protested, he originally was not willing to let me talk. When I asked him to allow me to represent her pro hac vice, pro bono after I made an effort of flying and driving from CA all night long, he stated that he didn’t sign pro hca vice application, at which time I told him that there is nothing preventing him from signing it now. He finally agreed. I’ve stated that the examples given by the AJ relate to Fed Court and issues before the elections.
To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in TX law or precedents preventing a citizen from having standing and presenting a grievance and seeking resolution of violation of her civil rights in seeking verification of eligibility and legitimacy of the siting president. Judge Carnes provided no response and simply stated that there is no jurisdiction and pretty much told us to go, which we certainly did by going straight to the US attorney’s office with a criminal complaint whereby my client’s civil rights under 1st, 14 9 and 10th amendment were violated. If there is no jurisdiction in Federal court and State court, then the citizens have there civil rights de facto taken away from them and they are reduced to a level of slaves. A group of patriots and I had a meeting with Assistant US attorney Chris Peele and Chief US Attorney for the North-Western district of TX for Criminal matters, Chris Peele . Mr. Durbin agreed to hear the matter and asked for our paperwork. We were shocked to find out how little they knew about the matter. Mr. Peele told us that he was under the impression that the case was heard on the merits. They had no clue that no Obama ineligibility case was ever heard on the merits, not one judicial subpoena was ever issued and nobody has ever seen his original birth certificate.
Currently we are coordinating efforts to schedule personal meetings of groups of volunteers with Chief US attorneys for criminal matters in each and every district of the US. Mr. Ken Burr and George Lewis will be in charge of this projct.
Update: And it keeps going. Ms. Brockhausen sent the following letter to the Editor of the Star-Telegram.com (with receipt by the editorial page Editor):
I’ll send this information to the news department which is responsible for coverage of news stories.
Paul K. Harral
Editor of the Editorial Page
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
TYPE OF SUBMISSION: Letter to the Editor
BODY OF SUBMISSION:
I received a message at 10:00 PM from your reporter covering my lawsuit and I am sorry I was not able to talk to him prior to the story running in the Star-Telegram about my court case. I am pleased you felt the story was newsworthy to cover. I would like to clarify a few things:
A Williamson County district judge dismissed the case arguing that Brockhausen did not have standing.”
This is not true, he ruled that his court did not have jurisdiction.
“Obama’s campaign released his birth certificate in June. It showed that he was born in a Honolulu hospital at 7:42 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961. Hawaii officials have said the birth certificate is authentic.”
What the Obama’s campaign posted on a website was not a “birth certificate,” it was a “certificattion of live birth” (COLB). This is very significant as it is only required for “the parent to have lived in Hawaii at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”
[§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]
You state that “Hawaii officials have said the birth certificate is authentic.” If you view the original statement released by the Hawaii officals, you will find the official actually states:
“…have personally seen and varified that the Hawai’i Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
See original here: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
Thus knowing that it is common practice for those born outside of the state (and the country) to obtain a Certification of Live Birth (such as has been posted on Mr. Obama’s website) one can surmise that an official “viewing Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate on record” does not mean that it is a Hawaiian birth certificate. To be “in accordance with state policies and procedures” says to me that COLBs are not only for those born in Hawaii. The document they are showing as proof that Obama is a Natural born Citizen (as the constitution requires) is not proof of birth in the US or Hawaii for that matter.
If presented a COLB, Hawaii requires supplementary documentation of proof of birth in Hawaii, as a COLB is not proof of a Hawaiian birth or of a US birth for that matter. This from the Hawaii Homelands site:
In order to process your application DHHL utilizes information that is only found on the original Certificate of Live Birth… This is a more complete record of your birth than a Certification of Live Birth… Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer generated certification requires additional verification from DHHL.
americamustknow.com reports today that another suit is believed to be pending in the great State of Texas: Jody A. Brockhausen vs Esparanza Andrade, Office of the Secretary of State; Case: 08-1001-C368 (PDF); Filed in District Court for the 368th Judicial District, Williamson County, Texas…
November 14 – Defendant pleas to dismiss case. Quote from docs:
Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses
Defendant is entitled to official immunity.
Plaintiff has suffered no damages due to Defendant’s conduct.
Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses that become apparent througout the factual development of this case
From the PDF:
7. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
7.1. Grant injunctive relief demanding that Defendant immediately acquire primary documents
or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or
verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.
7.2. Plaintiff requests Defendant to immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or
demand a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the
release of hospital records if so claimed on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was
born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.
7.3. Direct Defendant to certify or decertify the challenged candidates prior to the election based on the availability of clear documentation.
7.4. Plaintiff requests the Texas State, Secretary of State to immediately demand a certified copy
of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship.
7.5. If Defendant is unable to document a certified record of Obama’s oath of allegiance and
birth and hospital records, Defendant must decertify Mr. Obama as a valid candidate for the
office of President of the United States Office of the President under the United States
Constitution, Article II, Section I;
7.6. Award Plaintiff such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphases mine]
Regardless of what any Supreme Court Justice, President, Representative or Senator does or says, we see a “beyond the shadow of a doubt” guarantee that no law in America shall keep the concerned citizen from being able to petition a case in which they have reason to believe that the same government — tasked with upholding all tenets of this document — is overlooking even the smallest part thereof. In the case of the President-Elect’s eligibility, the question of his credentials is always an open one; if by no other grouping of citizens, then certainly by we, the People.
I have heard much opposition on this blog and many other places across the blogosphere and in the media (where it’s actually a consideration) that the mere questioning of a politician’s eligibility for the office of the presidency is met with rank disdain, in almost taboo fashion. I have to wonder: what’s the fear in asking questions? Is this not a classically liberal proposition? Are we not all to hold those who govern us accountable to — at the very least — the basic, fundamental document that is our highest law of the land? To wit…
We await judicial action on the following dates:
Wednesday, January 21: The Supreme Court is set to release its disposition of Berg v. Obama, whereby the Justices will decide whether or not to grant one of two types of injunctions against the Electoral College. The results are expected around 10am ET on the Supreme Court Orders page.
Thursday, January 22: The 368th Judicial District Court in Texas is expected to hear Brockhausen v. Andrade, where Plaintiff pro se Jody Brockhausen, among other things, asks the Court for various paperwork confirming the President-Elect’s eligibility.
Friday, January 23:Dr. Orly Taitz‘ case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, goes to Conference, essentially asking the Justices for an emergency stay to keep California’s Electoral College Electors from voting. If the Justices make a decision on this day, the Orders would likely be released between 2 and 3pm ET. This is the first case to reach the Supreme Court where the Plaintiffs include an Elector and a candidate for the vice presidency; theoretically, these two classes of citizens could overcome the standing hurdle.
The docket officially shows that Dr. Taitz’ suggestion for all Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from being involved with the President-Elect’s inauguration has been received.