The Right Side of Life » Kerchner v. Obama

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

Phil — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:05:39 +0000

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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19

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
http://www.protectourliberty.org

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

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

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

Phil — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:35:29 +0000

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.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 update:

I have received evidence from two sources that the Tennessee grand jury has not returned any sort of decision yet with respect to LTCDR Fitzpatrick’s presentation.

First, MotherJones.com posted, in part, the following update:

*UPDATE: James Stutts, the Monroe County District Attorney, left a message Monday night saying that in fact, Fitzpatrick testified for two hours before the grand jury in August and the jury declined to bring any charges based on his testimony. He also disputes Fitzpatrick’s characterization of that appearance and says the former Navy man was not physicially restrained in any way nor was he forced from the courtroom.

However, AmericanGrandJury.org posted the following from a certain Phil Dedrick, a concerned citizen who says he was on site:

Outside the courthouse with 36 supporters who showed up from Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Iowa…I also advised the crowd that The AGJ will be incorporating the Pendleton 8 in it’s next Jury…Even Channel 10 WBIR from Knoxville showed up and listened to all of Walter’s story today…With the big box and back pack that had all of Walters evidence, I can not see how the Monroe County Jury could even comptemplate not returning a TRUE BILL in favor of handing down the charges…

Representatives who showed up are from these following organizations:

(Tennessee Patriots from ResistNet.com)

(2 Un-Named individuals with Tennessee OathKeepers)

(TN. SonsOfLiberty.org President, Phil Hoffman, (Constitution Party of Tennessee 1st Vice State Chairman, Mr. Jim Headings, Mr. Doyle Pritchard and 6 more member un-named, they are also with the Tea Party Nation)

(Unknown??? County, Chairman from The Constitution Party of TN., Mr. Corky McDonald)

(Mike Williams, McMinn County, TN. Tea Party)

(Dorothy Cook, John Coker, and Barry Toomey with the TeaPartyNation, Athens, TN.)

(Jerry Henderson, Unknown Organization)

(Naomi Swanson with Chattanooga Patriots, but from Dalton, GA.)

(Joy Duval with Chattanooga Patriots/SmartGirlsPolitics.com)

(J.K. Williams and several other Smokey Mountain 9/12′ers)

(Glenda Marshall with Unknown Organization)

(and several un-named supporters totaling 36 supporers)…

My group left after Walter went into the Grand Jury room because we learned today that the Grand Jury will give their decision in a few days and not today…

—-

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III referenced a CanadaFreePress article via his blog stating that his treason charges over Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the presidency will be presented before a Tennessee grand jury (a Court-appointed grand jury, not a citizen grand jury) tomorrow, December 1:

After visits from the Secret Service and months of rejection by the courts, Commander Walter Fitzpatrick may get his day in court.

On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee. [emphases original]

Much more is at the referenced link. LTCDR Fitzpatrick apparently had some previous issues with this grand jury:

Fitzpatrick had to go so far as to file criminal obstruction charges against Foreman Pettway before he would gain access to the court. Despite it all, Commander Fitzpatrick forged ahead and on December 1st, his complaint will be heard by his local Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury.

It is not immediately clear at this time what the reason is for the grand jury’s formation nor at what time or to what extent that LTCDR Fitzpatrick would be presenting his evidence.

In related news, Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, released the following concerning his case being appealed:

25 Nov 2009 – For Immediate Release

There is activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA has issued a Briefing Notice schedule for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Briefing Notice Issued for Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/kerchner-v-obama-congress-3rd-circuit.html

Brief due dates for the Appeal are now set for 4 Jan 2010. We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court. They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a “natural born Citizen” of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle. And, the Supreme Court will also be asked to refer their legal definition to Congress to determine if Obama meets that legal ruled definition. I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper.

In the interim in addition to our internet efforts, we are running educational advertorials in print media to inform the general public of the issues. See an example attached. More examples can be seen at: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/advertorials.htm

And from the comments section, the UK’s Mail Online posted a story entitled, “Did Barack Obama lie about his birth to become President?”

Is it really too much to think that Mr. Obama could not have lied about his background to ensure his own political ascendancy? What does anyone really know about this man’s past outside of an alleged certification of live birth?

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Kerchner v. Obama: Case Appealed to Third Circuit

Phil — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:28:38 +0000

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:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
27 October 2009, 2:45 P.M. EDT

CONTACT: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
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.

Obama was born a British Subject to a British Subject father and Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day since he has never renounced it. According to this lawsuit Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiances, is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the President have sole allegiance to the USA at birth, which Obama does not have. Obama has multiple foreign allegiance claims on him because of his British birth. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen or immigrant to the USA. The lawsuit seeks a trial on the merits to determine the true facts of Obama’s legal identity and exact citizenship status and requiring Obama to prove to the courts that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which states:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The legal term of art, natural born citizen, is defined by the world renowned legal scholar Emmerich de Vattel in his pre-eminent legal treatise and enlightenment to the world of jurisprudence in the revolutionary period, The Law of Nations and Natural Law, published in 1758, and which was used by the founders during the Continental Congress formation of our country and by the framers of our U.S. Constitution, and whose definition of natural born Citizen is incorporated in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Vattel and U.S. Supreme Court decisions agree that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country. Obama’s father was not a citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA. Thus Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.
- more-
The lawsuit was filed early in the morning of January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn in. The case was dragged out by delays by the government in addressing the case and deciding on whether the case would proceed to a fact finding trial on the merits or not. The court has decided that it will not go to the merits and has dismissed the case using technical and procedural tactics to keep the Plaintiffs from getting to the merits of the charges.

By the Court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the Court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

For more information about the lawsuit see these links:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-at-250-am-20Jan2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09Feb2009

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17748032/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Docket-Report

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

For additional comments or information please contact Mario Apuzzo, Attorney at Law, 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, NJ, 08831, Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax: 732-521-3906, Email: Apuzzo@erols.com

The following is the docket of the case as of 10/27/2009:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – Docket Report

For those who wish to view a good “primer” of the case and what it’s about, here is a table of contents for the case:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – Table of Contents – 2nd Amended Complaint

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

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

Phil — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:35:19 +0000

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.”

Part of Anti-Mullah’s posting covered reporting on the part of Fox News (h/t NewsHounds, August, 2008, excerpted):

The FOX website released a collection of information about Obama to go along with their examination of his “character and conduct’. The choice of material pretty much illustrates the message they crafted in last night’s piece. …

Although time was spent exploring Obama’s community work in Chicago there was very little emphasis on his teaching career at the University of Chicago. Although viewers were informed that after interviewing 400 Columbia University graduates none of them knew Barack Obama when he attended, they didn’t bother to interview even one of his students about their experiences in Obama’s class. Wouldn’t that have provided insight into the candidates character?

The friendship with Sohale Siddiqi who he meant when he left home for the first time at 18 to attend Occidental College was made into a big deal during the documentary. They made a point to note that Obama visited Pakistan at age 20 to visit Siddiqi’s family. Then gravely explored Obama rooming with him in New York when he first got there alone, broke and homeless to go to Columbia. Obama had written about being forced to sleep on the streets for a few nights and waking up in an alley with a chicken pecking at him. FOX News managed to use it to connect Obama to the drug world with a claim from a New York City detective that the alley was located in a rough neighborhood run by Dominican drug lords.It’s doubtful that they were trying to stress that Obama’s poverty had put him in danger. The article about Obama and Saddiqi on the website is far more positive and objective than last night’s coverage.

Part of the last link in the above quote to The Seattle Times:

The Obama campaign declined to discuss Obama’s time at Columbia and his friendships in general. It won’t, for example, release his transcript or name his friends. It did, however, list five locations where Obama lived during his four years here: three on Manhattan’s Upper West Side and two in Brooklyn – one in Park Slope, the other in Brooklyn Heights. His memoir mentions two others on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.

Naturally, there’s the question of Columbia’s yearbook. This question is more than fully covered by DBKP and further commentary over at FreeRepublic; both links are certainly worth investigating for more insights into next to no background on this President.

While part of the story is dealing with Mr. Obama’s presence at Columbia University, I would invite all of my readers to not miss the bigger point here:

There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President. And for someone who claims to want to operate within the realm of transparency, one could not be any more opaque.

In related eligibility news, here are two links regarding the now-dismissed but promised-to-be-appealed Kerchner v. Obama case:

Federal judge cites lack of standing, dismisses Obama eligibility case (SonoranNews.com)
Judge Simandle Has Granted the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss (attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog)

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Eligibility Update: HI DoH Begins Revealing Data; Judge Responds in Kerchner v. Obama

Phil — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:02:29 +0000

In his continuing quest to demand answers to the question of how Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino could proclaim Mr. Obama to be a natural born citizen, attorney Leo Donofrio has, for the first time known to the eligibility movement, received an actual response from the Department with respect to some semblance of Mr. Obama’s background:

The Hawaii Department of Health has reversed course. They now admit that they do - in fact – make some vital records information available to the public. This admission reverses their prior response pattern indicating that “no information” could be released.

You will recall from Part 1 of my full report that previous official responses to UIPA requests were greeted with statements – issued by DoH Director Fukino and DoH Communications Director Okubo – which indicated that state law forbid “any information” about Hawaii vital records from being released. These rigid responses were issued despite the clear applicability of Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d) which requires the mandatory release of some information from vital records on file with the DoH.

Just after I released that report, the Post and Email blog detailed that another researcher who requested “index data” had received the same improper denial of access to that index data. I blogged on that denial in my report entitled, “Hawaii DoH Official Janice Okubo Places her Thumb Directly In The Giants Eye.”

Behind the scenes, myself and two other members of my research team – KingsKid and Justin Riggs – have been issuing very specific UIPA requests. And last night KingsKid received a response to her UIPA request from DoH Communications Director Okubo which exhibits a complete reversal of policy.

KingsKid UIPA REQUEST ANSWERED BY OKUBO… AND MORE?

From: [KingsKid real name redacted]

To: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov

Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:03 AM

Subject: Request for information

Dear Ms. Okubo,

IAW Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d), I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr, Mr. Barack H. Obama, II, and/or Mr. Barry Soetoro or any other name used by that party.

This statute at para (d) provides officials no authority to withhold the requested information. Therefore, I as an American citizen, am invoking Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d) Disclosure of records, which reads as follows: (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public [my emphasis].

Ms. Okubo, I worked for the federal government for 32 years as a contracting officer and can appreciate the position you are in. However, I will tell you this, when it came to doing my job, I never allowed politics to interfere. Call it personal integrity, upholding my principles, or whatever. I went by the acquisition regulations scrupulously, thus, no one could ever contest what I had done. Yes, I encountered opposition when I rebuffed “politics”, but I wouldn’t budge. Standing steadfast sometimes brought me short-term grief, but in the end, right triumphed. I see you in a similar situation. I don’t know you or your personal ethics or agenda. I do know that as a public official and servant to the people, you have a duty to carry out the laws that govern your department.

Ms. Okubo, you cannot escape the duty you have … in providing this information to anyone who requests it. According to the referenced statute, you are to provide me all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr (or any other name he has used as indicated above), AND such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public. My request right now is limited to all the index data on Mr. Obama. If you have other information that you care to make available in addition, please send that also.

As a public servant, you have the responsibility to uphold the law in all respects and not cherry-pick what is politically expedient for you or any other public servant. All your public responses that I have seen on the internet to date, absolutely avoid any reference at all to paragraph (d). You obviously don’t want to release Mr. Obama’s index file, but by your own law, you have to. The truth always comes out, Ms. Okubo. You can save yourself embarrassment, if something not more serious, by quickly complying with Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d)…

Last night, Janice Okubo responded to KingsKid with the following email:

From: Okubo, Janice S.

To: [email redacted]

Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PM

Subject: RE: Request for information

Aloha..,

Index data referred to in HRS 338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu . The Director in accordance with 338-18 (d) has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.

In response to your request the following index data is being provided:

BIRTH INDEX
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

CHILD
OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN
GENDER
M

MARRIAGE INDEX
SORTED BY BRIDE
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

GROOM
OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN

BRIDE
DUNHAN, STANLEY ANN

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…

(Okubo used the “blue ink” to transmit the index data. And Stanley Ann’s last name is misspelled as “DUNHAN”. It should be “Dunham”. KingsKid is awaiting clarification.)

[UPDATE: 2:35 PM 10.02.09 KingsKid was informed by Okubo that the index file has the correct spelling "DUNHAM" and the typo was her mistake, it's spelled correctly in the file.]

This response certainly gives a plethora of new information. First and foremost, it tells us that a thumb is being removed from the giant’s eye. This is, as far as I know, the first time the DoH has responded to a request for information from President Obama’s vital records by releasing actual records as opposed to Fukino’s view of those records.

This is a significant change in policy caused by renewed public attention.

It also tells one where to view the actual index data with your own eyes, “…the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu.”

The index file also lists President Obama’s name as “Barack Hussein Obama II”.

BRIDE AND GROOM?

This information allows us to put the rumour to bed which claims that Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. weren’t married. They were married in Hawaii. However…

KingsKid didn’t request index data for Stanley Ann or Barack, Sr.

I thought it was very odd that Okubo included the marriage index information in her response to KingsKid’s very specific request for President Obama’s index data. Specifically, I was confused as to why Okubo’s response would list “Bride” and “Groom” in Obama’s index file instead of “Mother” and “Father”.

Okubo’s response to KingsKid gives the impression that the names of Obama’s parents are included in that response – but it doesn’t have them listed as parents.

It has them listed only as bride and groom.

Knowing that the DoH has exhibited a penchant for misdirection, this raised a big red flag for me.

I asked KingsKid to write back to Okubo and have her clarify whether the index data made available to the public includes parentage or whether the information Okubo provided was from the index files of Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. I also suggested that KingsKid query Okubo as to whether a divorce would appear in the index file.

Below is the follow up inquiry sent by KingsKid to Okubo at 10:07PM EST, last night (Oct. 1, 2009):

Thank you for your response. However, I am a bit perplexed by the terms “bride” and “groom”, and would appreciate clarification. Is the “bride and groom” index data that you provided part of the President’s index file, or is it from Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama, Sr index files? Also, was the divorce of SAD and BOH, Sr. part of the 338-18(d) index data?

Thank you for your assistance once again.

And here is Okubo’s response:

From: Okubo, Janice S.

To: [KingsKid - real name redacted]

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:29 PM

Subject: RE: Clarificatio, Please

Aloha..,

I am sorry; I may have misunderstood your request. The “bride” and “groom” index data is from Stanley Ann Dunahm and Barack Hussein Obama index files.

The Department of Health does not hold divorce records, they are with the Department of Judiciary.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health

So now we know that the DoH doesn’t maintain divorce records. Those are maintained by the “Judiciary”.

Beyond that, I just don’t know what to make of this at all. I can’t see how Okubo could have “misunderstood” the request. KingsKid was very specific:

“…I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr, Mr. Barack H. Obama, II, and/or Mr. Barry Soetoro or any other name used by that party.”

It’s clear that KingsKid was asking only for the President’s index data, not for the index data of Stanley Ann and/or Barack Sr. Okubo’s response offered up information from multiple index files. But nowhere in the request does it make reference to anyone but the President.

Either, Communications Director Okubo did misunderstand the request, or she was trying to give the impression that the President’s index data lists the names of Stanley Ann and Barack Sr. as his parents.

I am truly baffled. Since when does the DoH give more information than was requested. Are we going to be subjected to Seussian Hooplah such as – It depends what the meaning of “parents” is – ?

I have to believe the President’s vital records will show that SAD and BHO are his biological parents. But Okubo’s response to KingsKid, Fukino’s “natural-born” determination, and the refusal by the DoH to enlighten the public as to Attorney General Mark Bennet’s approval thereof forces the need for public inquiry to reach much further.

Also, Okubo’s response misspells Stanley Ann’s last name as “Dunahm” while the index data misspells Stanley Ann’s name as “Dunhan“. Researchers visiting the Office of Health Status Monitoring will need to use multiple variations of the name “Dunham” in order to thoroughly search the public index data. Cue Twilight Zone theme. [UPDATED: 2:34 PM 10.02.09 - Okubo has taken responsibility for the spelling errors. They are a non-issue.]

And finally, it isn’t clear to us yet whether the index data provided by Okubo to KingsKid includes all of the index data available via 338-18(d) for Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. We need further clarification on that.

MAYA SOETORO

KingsKid also requested index data for Maya Soetoro, the President’s sister. Okubo’s response indicates that there is no record on file with the DoH in Hawaii for Maya. So, I believe we can safely put to bed all allegations that Obama’s online COLB was created using a COLB issued for Maya as a template.

Here is the request made by KingsKid on September 28, 2009 5:20 AM as to Maya:

As per Hawai’i Revised Statute 338-18(d), I am herein requesting “index data” available to the public according to the statute, specifically the index data pertaining to a birth record for the person known as President Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro, aka Maya Kassandra Soetoro, aka Maya Soetoro-ng…

Below is Okubo’s response:

From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [KingsKid email redacted]
Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Request for Information

Aloha…

There is no record that responds to this request.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health

PROPER RESPONSE UNDER OIP ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

This response by Okubo illustrates the correct format Hawaii state agencies must comply with when the requested records are not maintained by an agency. (See OIP administrative rule §2-71-14(c)(1).) If the agency does not maintain the record they must inform the requestor that no such record exists.

All of this correspondence between Okubo and KingsKid is encouraging. It tells me that the DoH is aware of a growing public enlightenment concerning citizen knowledge of open government laws. It’s important now that we stay on point and get all of the information the law makes available to the public.

BASTIONS OF ELIGIBILITY BLOWIN’ IN THE WIND

I would like to point out that the two core bastions cited by members of Congress and the main stream media as providing credibility to Obama’s eligibility issues – Factcheck.org and the Hawaii Department of Health – have both been seriously impeached by the findings of this blog.

Not only was Factcheck.org forced to admit I caught them making a serious error as to their factchecking of President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship, they had to publish a second apologetic response due to their having mistakenly reported that I was a “former attorney” while I am fully licensed. Factcheck.org blamed their mistake on other news reports, but they certainly could have checked with me or the New Jersey court system had they been truly dedicated to getting their facts straight before publication.

Now the Hawaii DoH has been forced to back pedal from a previous pattern of issuing blanket denials of access to “all information” contained in Hawaii vital records.

My next report will analyze the legal means by which the public should gain access to President Obama’s vital records which have already been made public by him and the Hawaii DoH.

by Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009 Leo C. Donofrio [emphases original]

Many congratulations to Mr. Donofrio, KingsKid, and (likely) various other individuals who have received actual data!

To recap, we now know for a fact the following information:

Barack Hussein Obama’s parents;
That Mr. Obama’s parents were, at one point, married;
That Maya Soetoro is not recorded to have been a child of Mr. Obama (I) or Ms. Dunham.

Further, we also now know for a fact the following information:

Whether or not Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii;
Whether or not Maya Soetoro was born in Hawaii;
The DoH is refusing to furnish any further information based on their previous responses.

And so the question remains; since the index data does not in any way reveal conclusive evidence that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, upon what basis did the Director make such a proclamation?

I still say it’s the DNC’s candidate eligibility certification.

Also, after attorney Mario Apuzzo issued a letter to the Judge overseeing his case, he received the following response today:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – DOC 40 Judge Simandle Response to Atty Apuzzo Letter of Inquiry

Per a recent posting by the lead Plaintiff, Charles Kerchner (further links available there), here’s the current Court docket:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – Docket Report

Don’t forget to see another informative posting from John Charlton at The Post & Email entitled, “The Crime of Usurpation.”

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Eligibility Update: HI AG Response to Questions; “Birther” Infomercial Airs; Kerchner v. Obama Letter to Judge

Phil — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:34:05 +0000

As I had been reporting, attorney Leo Donofrio has teamed up with “TerriK” (Update: they are peaceably going in separate directions) in an investigation and potential lawsuit aimed at discovering upon what basis did Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino declare that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

Today, Mr. Donofrio posted on his web site that the Hawaiian Attorney General Mark Bennett approved Dr. Fukino’s July 27 press release, lending credence to the fact that we, the People, have a right to know the basis for such a claim (much more at the referenced link):

Justin Riggs sent the following email to DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo on July 29, 2009:

From: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
To: …janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov, [redacted other recipient]

…Ms. Okubo,

I am currently a masters degree candidate at …

The reason that I am contacting your organizations is that you are, as far as I can tell from my research, the only two groups that have openly stated that President Obama is a natural born citizen (one of the Article II, Section I qualifications for being President). I would like to document how you came to that conclusion: i.e. what the criteria is for your organization, what evidence the candidate provides, etc.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to receiving a response in the near future.

Sincerely,

Justin W. Riggs

Janice Okubo responded later that day:

From: Okubo, Janice S..
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…

Aloha Justin,

The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…

So, we know that Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennet “reviewed and approved” Fukino’s July 27th press release. Bennet may have prepared the entire press release or perhaps just the “natural-born” part. We don’t know. Okubo states that she is unable to provide further comment, so the rest is a mystery at this point. But we certainly have another public statement here which makes information available to the public.

The public is therefore entitled to all records maintained by Hawaii officials which pertain to this July 29th statement by Okubo. For example, any emails between Okubo and AG Bennett, between Okubo and Fukino, between Bennett and Fukino, Governor Lingle, etc. which guided Okubo’s statement to Justin Riggs must be disclosed along with memos, letters, transcripts, video and telephonic conference recordings and any other records maintained thereto.

The same goes for any records maintained documenting dialogue between Hawaii officials and federal officials as to this issue.

But more important is that all of the above records pertaining to Fukino’s July 27th press release must also be disclosed.

In related news, a concerned citizen forwarded me the following story out of Springfield, Missouri from KY3.com regarding an infomercial concerning “birthers:”

[The following report is a rough approximation of the reporting in the above video]

SPRINGFIELD — Almost nine months into his presidency and there are still groups questioning Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship.

And now the so-called “birther” movement has taken to the airwaves right here in Missouri.

A fundamentalist Christian group has teamed up with a right-wing legal foundation to put together a half hour infomercial, asking the question: “Where was President Obama born?” The group has aired the ads in cities in seven states, and last week, if you were up late enough, you could’ve seen it in the Ozarks.

It aired at midnight last Thursday on Ky3’s sister station, KSPR. It’s the latest piece of evidence that the “birther” movement is not about to go dark.

“It’s obvious President Obama is trying to hide where he was really born,” blasts the infomercial.

Despite verification from the Hawaii Department of Health that the president has a valid state certificate of birth, Live Prayer.com has teamed up with the United States Justice Foundation to urge people to write $30 checks to help pay for faxes asking every state Attorneys General to launch an investigation.

As a thank-you, recipients will receive a bumper sticker, which reads, “Got birth certificate?”

It may be a fringe movement, but Ky3 Incorporated General Manager Mike Scott said the station will only restrict content if it violates the law or is deemed libelous.

“Obviously, the opinions of this particular program may be a minority of our viewers, but certainly I think this group has the right to express themselves. I don’t think it’s libelous in any fashion,” Scott said.

“A lot of us might feel differently and find fault in what they’re saying — but it’s really not our position to judge that,” he added.
The entire movement has forced Republicans into sticky situations. Congressman Roy Blunt said this summer that the birth certificate issue was legitimate.

“I don’t know anyone else that can’t produce one, and I think that’s a legitimate question,” Blunt, a candidate for U.S. Senate, is seen saying on a YouTube video.

Gary Kreep, executive director of the U.S. Justice Foundation said he is not sure if he would be pursuing this issue if John McCain had been elected president.

“I might be, the issue never came up,” Kreep said.

Kreep has doubts about the authenticity of the documents produced thus far.

“If Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he committed a criminal act in every state he signed nominating papers,” said Kreep in a phone interview with Ky3 News from California.

But dig deeper into Live Prayer’s background and you see uglier motivations.

A video on its website compares President Obama’s promise of “hope and change” to Adolph Hitler’s.

“The people of Germany had no idea that Hitler’s Hope & Change would lead to the death of 60 million people,” says a video posted on the group’s website.

Kreep said he doesn’t endorse Live Prayer’s comparisons of President Obama to Hitler. He said his group has already received between 1500 to 2000 faxes from around the country, calling for an investigation.

The Missouri Republican Party declined to comment on the groups involved or the infomercial. [emphases added]

Kudos to the GM for recognizing that the 1st Amendment is still in force. And regarding the Nazi inferences, I certainly don’t disagree with what the video portrays, especially since it was Madame Speaker who started the whole name-calling frenzy to begin with.

Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, submitted the following letter to USDC Judge Jerome Simandle asking why any response from the Court is now 6 weeks overdue:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – Doc 39 – Inquiry Letter to Judge Simandle FILED 10-1-09

And The Post & Email’s John Charlton asks the following of the Kenyan ambassador at Rome, hoping for a response:

July 20, 2009

H.E. Mrs. Ann B. Nyikuli,
Ambassador of Kenya to the Italian Republic
Embassy of the Republic of Kenya,
Via Archimede, 164
00197 ROMA

Dear Ambassador,

I am a citizen of the Republic of Italy, but writing to you regarding a question I have about the most famous son of Kenya, the U.S. President Barrack Hussein Obama.

My American friends are telling me that there is a controversy over whether President Obama is the son of Barrack Obama, of the Lulo tribe, in Kenya, or whether he is the son of an American Black civil rights activist, Frank Marshall Davis, in the USA, who resided in Hawaii.

My question is this: Can you confirm for me that the Government of Kenya has documents of its own which testify to the paternity of Barrack Obama, of the Lulo Tribe, as being the biological father of the U.S.President, Barrack Hussein Obama? And if you can confirm this, what kind of documents are these (adoption, registration of birth, birth certificate, medical records). I do not want the documents, I only want your confirmation that Kenya has some documents of its own, to claim Obama as a son of the soil.

Please respond in writing, so I can have something solid to refute these silly ideas of my American friends!

Thank you,

[Name and Address redacted] [emphasis original]

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy macprohawaii at flickr

Barnett v. Obama: 2008 Joint Congressional Session Could be Discovery Loophole

Phil — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:10:21 +0000

CreativeOgre at the CountryFirst forum and I had originally reported back in January regarding then-Vice President Cheney’s apparent failure to call for objections during the 2008 Joint Session of Congress certifying electoral votes for the presidency.

Thursday, attorney Leo Donofrio posted the following article in response to Judge David Carter’s recent motion to limit discovery in the case, Barnett v. Obama, presenting would could be a legitimate avenue of discovery (and this isn’t the only case that would be covering this angle; see below):

[UPDATED: 9:45 AM. Upates in strikeout and red ink.]

Today, Judge Carter issued a limited discovery order pertaining to the case of Barnett v. Obama. Judge Carter’s order stated:

All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

Regarding that order, one of my astute readers (Joe The Blogger) asked the following question which led me to write this post:

Leo,

What do you think about taking advantage of Judge Carter’s Order for limited discovery…Surely there is SOME scope here for forcing SOME information out of the DOJ?

While reading Judge Carter’s limited discovery order, the following passage caught my eye:

In this case, Defendants have alleged that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for various reasons, including that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that is properly addressed by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 11.

As you know, Judge Carter agreed to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved regarding whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.

With Judge Carter’s reasoning guiding my analysis, I carefully examined the DOJ motion to dismiss paying special attention to the arguments made starting on page 11. When I got to page 13, I found something interesting:

Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress is directed to be in session on the appropriate date to count the electoral votes for President, with the President of the Senate presiding. The statute further directs that the electoral votes be counted, and then the results be presented to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute then provides a mechanism for objections to be registered and resolved in the following language:

“[e]very 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 . . . 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.”

That’s an interesting quote… interesting for what the DOJ left out.

They conveniently cut the statute off when they bring it into the brief. The uncensored passage from 3 U.S.C. § 15 states:

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…

The DOJ clipped the statute so as to leave out the part which places a burden on the Vice President, acting in his role as President of the Senate, to call for objections after the count of votes.

Vice President Cheney failed to call for objections as the statute requires.

(See the You Tube video of the 2009 electoral vote count at about the 27:00 minute mark.)

The DOJ motion to dismiss relies upon separation of powers and the political question doctrine alleging the district court has no authority to entertain the case. In doing so, the DOJ cites specifically 3 U.S.C. § 15 as proof that challenges to the President’s eligibility are provided for by Congress.

This is true, but those provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

There are, as usual, many opinions as to why the specific letter of the law was not carried out and a call for objections made. But I see noofficial explanation available to the public.

Therefore, since the issue was specifically raised by the DOJ motion to dismiss in a quotation which fails to provide the court with the full context of the law cited, I see no reason why the court should deny the plaintiffs discovery on this particular issue.

Since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should demand discovery of the following:

1. Since no call for objections was made, each member of Congress and the Senate should be served with interrogatories requesting deposed as to whether they would object on the basis of Obama’s eligibility.

NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

Got that? Make it broad, not specific.

- Some may have objections to his admission of British birth.

- Some may have objections regarding his place of birth.

Don’t limit the interrogatories deposition to any specific objection. Just ask each Representative or Senator whether they would object to Obama’s eligibility.

The Constitution does not require a birth certificate be offered. The Constitution does require that the President be a natural born citizen. The interrogatories should be simple. For example:

Dear Congressman Ron Paul – Had Vice President Cheney called for objections after the counting of electoral votes as is required by 3 U.S.C. § 15, would you have objected?

That’s sufficient as written. Send that to each Senator and Representative.

Usually depositions are limited to a certain amount, but the court may order depositions as well if the court is convinced they are necessary. In this case, the deposititons would be very short, just a few minutes each.

2. Interrogatories should be issued which question Cheney should be deposed as to why he didn’t call for objections as was required by the statute.

Depending on the answers in those interrogatories depostions, the court might order the Senate and Representatives to meet for the purpose of hearing a call for objections.

After all, if the Government is going to cite 3 U.S.C. § 15 as evidence that the process of approving the President’s eligibility belongs to Congress, then the plaintiffs ought to be entitled to the protection of the statute by an enforcement of the duties specifically prescribed therein.

District courts do have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a ministerial duty owed. Calling for objections was a ministerial duty owed – that was not performed.

In my opinion, this is the best chance of getting any meaningful discovery approved. [emphases original]

Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, has included the above as one of numerous points in that case (page 34):

179. Cheney then asked the tellers to count the total votes and provide the totals to him as the President of the Senate.

180. He then announced the vote totals for each candidate for each office, declared Obama and Biden the winners, and dissolved the Joint Session.

181. At no time did he call for objections after the vote tally was reported for each state or at the end of the total vote for either office. http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1843&p=7069&hilit=B urris#p7265.

182. Pursuant to Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Cheney was required to openly call for objections to each state’s vote after each individual state’s vote is read. Cheney failed to satisfy this minimum procedural requirement. ENDNOTE 33.

183. So not only did the Joint Session of Congress fail to vet and investigate Obama’s qualifications to be President under the unique circumstances existing in the public arena and given the petition of the plaintiffs and thousands of other people, but Cheney violated 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 by not openly calling for objections after each state’s votes were announced.

Further, via my January posting, blogger Justin Riggs of YourFellowCitizen.com said the following:

In both 2000 and 2004, objections were raised; not after, but during, the counting of the votes. In 2000, the Congressman had no Senator, and the objection was dismissed. In 2004, a Congressman and a Senator signed an objection, the joint session was dissolved, it was debated for two hours, and the Congress came to a conclusion. I’ve got transcripts of the three years available, if anyone wants them.

Perhaps Mr. Riggs — who still frequents my site — still has the documentation available.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Eligibility Update: Kenyan BR vs HI COLB, Kerchner v. Obama, Schneller v. Cortes, FL Election Complaint

Phil — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:05:11 +0000

Following up on the developing story in which attorney Dr. Taitz is attempting to verify an alleged Kenyan Birth Registration for Mr. Obama, WorldNetDaily Editor and CEO Joseph Farah has released an email calling on Mr. Obama to release his long-form birth certificate as Mr. Farah “works with document experts in the U.S. and with sources in Kenya to determine its validity”:

Joseph Farah calls on Obama to release his long-form birth certificate to end growing controversy

WASHINGTON — The unauthenticated document purporting to be a Kenyan certificate of birth for Barack Obama has refocused the debate over his presidential eligibility.

Released publicly yesterday by California attorney Orly Taitz as evidence in her court case challenging Obama to prove his constitutional qualifications to hold office, the document raises new questions about the president’s birthplace.

WorldNetDaily.com is working with document experts in the U.S. and with sources in Kenya to determine its validity.

“We’ve had less than 24 hours to consider its authenticity or non-authenticity,” explains Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of the first news agency to publish the document. “Our goal, as always, is to seek the truth. This is not our document. It is evidence that has presented in a high-profile court case. And, thus, I believe we had a journalistic responsibility to publish it — just as I think every other news organization does.”

Farah says there are many questions still to be answered about the certification of live birth that Obama has disseminated — including the fact that the Public Health Department of the state of Hawaii has refused to confirm is it an official Hawaiian document issued by that office.

“This is why it is so important that Obama release his original, long-form birth certificate to end the speculation and the growing uneasiness Americans are increasingly feeling about his eligibility,” explains Farah. “More and more, people are puzzled and mystified as to why he is refusing to release that document, as well as his school records, his college transcripts, his university papers and his travel records.”

Farah says WorldNetDaily.com, which has led the way in investigating this story, will continue to do so relentlessly until it is resolved to the satisfaction of most Americans.

See article on Kenyan birth document.

Contact: M. Sliwa Public Relations, 973-272-2861, media@msliwa.com [emphasis original]

WND has also posted that the Hawaii Department of Health continues to be tight-lipped over whether or not any purported images of Mr. Obama’s alleged certification of live birth are legitimate…

In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org.

Janice Okubo, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

And now prominent blogger Andrew Sullivan wonders why we should be only trusting what officials tell us when a birth certificate could be immediately produced to end all speculation:

The whole birth certificate issue gets weirder still:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

But why are we supposed to rely on the testimony of Dr Fukino, whom I believe entirely. It is not my job as a journalist or yours as a citizen to take public officials on trust. They are not to be trusted, whoever they are. It is our job to demand all the evidence we want or need. I know the electronic record is legit. I have no doubt that Obama has every constitutional right to be president. I think the Birthers are nuts. But there is no reason on earth that the original cannot be retrieved and shown. Jon Klein and CNN were wrong, and I retract my apology of yesterday.

Obama promised total transparency. Where is it? Or will it arrive at the moment when he tackles the deficit, and withdraws from Iraq?

Another motion had been filed in the Kerchner v. Obama case last week:

Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition for the Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit has been filed today by Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 38 Plaintiffs Reply Brief Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave re 2nd Amend Co…

Also last week, James Schneller, Plaintiff pro se in Schneller v. Cortes, has announced that he is applying to pay fees in his dismissed case:

PRESS RELEASE

Schneller files Application for Permission to Pay Fee in Obama Appeal

Thursday, July 30, 2009, 12:30 PM (EST)
Contact James D. Schneller | 610-688-9471 | schnlj@aol.com
500 East Lancaster Avenue
Radnor, PA 19087

Appeal from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Regarding Natural-Born Status Of Barack Obama Was Dismissed -- Not Denied — Aggrieved Citizen James Schneller Raises Right to Pay Fee if Court Has Found Verity in Petition for Writ of Certiorari but Has Balked because of Series of Free Appeals Allowed to Schneller Since 2004 — Schneller Requests Permission to Pay Fee, and Further Action By the Court Upon Payment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Pennsylvania citizen whose Obama -- Citizenship case was reviewed at a conference of the United States Supreme on June 18, 2009 and dismissed, has filed an application for permission to pay the filing fee so that the case may proceed further in the Supreme Court. The Court at the time of dismissal of the petition for a writ of certiorari, denied the motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and directed the Clerk to not accept further petitions from him without the filing fee.

The fee situation boils down to the Supreme Court’s deciding to no longer provide free appeals to the plaintiff, James Schneller, who has been waived the filing fee of $ 300.00 in six appeals involving : deprivations of access to Courts by State Rules of Court; question of whether Congress’ Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act allows private suits for unwanted physician-caused deaths; failure of Pennsylvania law enforcement to implement laws protecting rights of nursing home patients; improper decision making as to advance health directives, and failure to investigate injuries to elderly, by Pennsylvania Protective Services for the elderly, and others.

Schneller’s reasons for asking the US Supreme Court to accept the fee and review the Obama natural-born-citizen case further include:

- A petition’s being dismissed, as opposed to denied, is a recognized indicator in the Federal Courts of a right to pay the fee, especially since the Supreme Court decided Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (“dismissal . . . does not prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations”)

- The standard of review is different in a paid case, so that the Court conceivably may review the matter further, or all over again, upon payment of the fee.

- The petition was not dismissed “with prejudice.” The appellate Courts have consistently found that a plain dismissal does not warrant a case’s wholesale defeat.

- Perceived posture in the language of the order of the Supreme Court that it has seen some merit to the petition, or has left a window open for further argument, or has decided that before Schneller may again expend the Court’s resources, even to decide this petition, the legal fee must be paid.

- Allowance in the Circuit Courts of a “reasonable time” to pay the fee, and the Third Circuit’s alleviations to Schneller in other cases : either waiving the $ 450.00 fee, or allowing times of three months and five months to pay the fee. State Court’s frequent waiver of the fee to Schneller.

- the intentional impoverishment to Schneller, constituting unconstitutional obstruction and retaliation for his court actions, by third parties.

- the fact that a filing of a number of petitions, without any proven misuse of the Court system, should in no way support a designating of a litigant as malicious or overactive.

- consistent Court policy that sanctions like those made to Schneller are made only in cases where prior direct orders have been openly disobeyed a number of times, with warnings given each time, which has not occurred in any conceivable way in Schneller’s actions.

- the undeniable constitutional right that access to courts and rights to appeal may not be conditioned upon a litigant’s financial means. Lecates v. Justice of Peace Court No. 4 of State of Del., 637 F.2d 898 (C.A.3, 1980.)

Numerous other cases are also being litigated in regard to the failure of Barack Obama to qualify for office. Americans are increasingly concerned that Barack Obama refuses to release any but the most meaningless information about his past.

Schneller is litigating this case on his own initiative and out of concern for national security and longevity of liberty and the Constitution.

________________

Schneller’s appeal asks reversal of denial to Schneller of his petition for writ of mandamus and injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008. That petition requested a delay of the vote by the Pennsylvania electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had been unlawfully based on the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all Pennsylvania county officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.

Schneller, in the suit, demands that the Secretary of the Commonwealth perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen. He claims that the Secretary had ample time to demand proofs from Obama in December2008, before the vote was certified and delivered to the electoral college, and objects to the nationwide absence of such action despite most State’s having statutes on the books requiring proper screening of candidates.

The appeal also requests a finding that the Pennsylvania law that makes the Office of the President of the United States exempt from the requirement that candidates file an affidavit that they are eligible for office, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Schneller raises the fact that the Pennsylvania handbook for elections states that candidates for national President and Vice President may be requested to provide all additional information necessary regarding their eligibility and qualification for office.

To receive a copy of any documents please request the above named contact.

Regarding questions of eligibility, Florida realtor Robert Quinn, whom I had reported was petitioning the State’s Governor and Secretary of State promising to file a complaint against the Democratic National Committee and the Florida Democratic Party if they did not respond to his requests, has confirmed that the following complaint has been received by Attorney General Bill McCollum on July 30, 2009:

Phil – I have received no response from SOS Browning or Governor Crist. Yesterday I sent via certified mail the official Election Fraud Complaint and Request for Investigation to Fla. AG Bill McCollum. I have attached a copy to this email for you to use … . My goal from the very beginning has been to fix the system so that birth certificates are required before any presidential candidates name is placed upon future ballot. Since only the DNC has the authority and responsibility to demand such, they should be required to do that now or remain a part of the fraud charge. Why not??

I am but a layman but the denial of we voters fundamental due process constitutional right to see the eligibility verifying documents of all presidential candidates is so clear to me, and I think most voters, I don’t see how anyone but a person that has something to hide could object. 2010 is an election year and I hope this idea can be picked up as an issue. All of these guys are in the game.

I Am a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America

For a good laugh, here’s a video for the “Red State Update” via HotAir.com (mild language warning!) describing the “mainstream liberals” in DC:

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Eligibility Update: Kerchner v. Obama, Goldberg and O’Reilly, Gohmert and HR1503

Phil — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:55:53 +0000

Linda Bentley of SonoranNews.com reports the following regarding Kerchner v. Obama (excerpted):

…Plaintiffs claim Obama is not an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ because his father Barack Obama, Sr., who was never a U.S. citizen or even a permanent resident at the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, was a British subject under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom until 1963, which is when Kenya received its independence and both Obama and his father became Kenyan citizens. …

Because the word “standing” in not found anywhere in the Constitution, Apuzzo maintains the test for “standing” is a judicial invention and stated, “In deciding this case, the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” adding, “All a litigant must do to demonstrate standing is allege personal injury fairly traceable to the … allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.”

The injury need only be an invasion of a legally protected interest that is “concrete and particularized” as well as “actual or imminent,” rather than “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” Defendants argue plaintiffs have not met that standard and cited several cases challenging Obama’s and Sen. John McCain’s “natural born Citizen” status and in which the courts ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Apuzzo said the cited cases were distinguishable because Obama was sued as a candidate and not yet bound to the Constitution, which occurred when he took his oath on Jan. 20, 2009. …

Plaintiffs have not brought a “citizen suit,” seeking to vindicate a general public interest, as defendants suggest, but a redress of their own grievances and injuries. …

“The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the people and the federal government,” stated Apuzzo. “As parties to that contract, the plaintiffs have every constitutional right to demand that the contract be enforced by the judicial branch of government.” …

Apuzzo also pointed out an exception to the standing requirement, whereas a citizen may challenge an action that would otherwise go unchallenged in the courts.

While both McCain and Obama were similarly situated, the Senate investigated the former but not the latter and plaintiffs argue the congressional defendants denied them that equal protection under the law.

If anything, Apuzzo said, Obama, who has refused to produce his birth certificate, prevented public access to medical, educational and travel documents, whose father was born a British subject, and who himself was born a British subject, presented a much more questionable case for establishing Article II “natural born Citizen” status than did McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone to two U.S. citizen parents who were on military duty at the time of his birth.

Apuzzo asserts Congress denied Kerchner equal treatment, based on party loyalty, race (wanting to avoid the appearance of being racist against the first African-American President-elect) or some other unknown factor and put up an “unjust, unequal and discriminatory barrier” to Kerchner’s petition for redress of his grievance. …

He says this cause of action is about a “serious violation of our Constitution,” not a dispute about where Obama was born.

Reporter and analyst Bernard Goldberg was on tonight’s The O’Reilly Factor on FoxNews discussing the birth certificate controversy and how he thinks that the Obama Administration wants the controversy to continue:

And Mary Ann Aker’s blog on The Washington Post opines about Rep. Louie Gohmert’s (R-TX) recent cosponsorship of HR1503:

Does Gohmert believe the conspiracy theorists who argue — despite plenty of evidence to the contrary — that Obama was really born in Kenya, not in Hawaii?

“I don’t know if it’s true or not,” Gohmert told the Sleuth in a telephone interview Wednesday evening. “But I read that Lou Dobbs said [Obama's] original birth certificate was destroyed.” (That would be Lou Dobbs of CNN, who has helped to perpetuate the Internet-fueled rumorthat the copy of Obama’s birth certificate produced by his campaign last year is fraudulent.)

Gohmert says he’s “shocked that people are saying the people who signed onto the bill are conspiracy theorists.” The whole point of the bill, he argues, is to “eliminate all this conspiracy talk.”

He pointed out that questions were raised last year about the true citizenship of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

When reminded that Hawaii government officials had affirmed and reaffirmed this week that Obama was indeed born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, Gohmert said, “That’s what they say… I don’t know if it’s true or not.”

Gohmert is in the same company as Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the former No. 2 House Republican who is running for Senate in 2010. Blunt, though not an official co-sponsor of the birther bill, wasvideotaped this week on Capitol Hill by a reporter for the liberal blog Firedoglake questioning Obama’s birth creds.

“What I don’t know is why the president can’t produce a birth certificate,” Blunt said. “I don’t know anybody who can’t produce one. That’s a legitimate question -- no health records, no birth certificate.”

Well, isn’t that something? Apparently Rep. Gohmert and I are of the same mind. I guess that officially makes him a “birther” too, huh? He doesn’t know for sure, but he’s not stopping anyone from trying to get to the truth of the matter… and neither is Rep. Blunt.

Scary (for the opposition), huh?

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy HBO.com

Kerchner v. Obama: Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief

Phil — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:05:57 +0000

Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, reports that the Defendants have filed their reply to his Opposition Brief:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 37 Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition Brief to Defendants MTD

Charles Kerchner, the lead Plaintiff, makes the following commentary:

As I read these documents and the docket, the motion decision dates are now scheduled as follows: on or about 3 August 2009 on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit and on or about 17 August 2009 on the Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to get leave from the court for the 2nd Amended Verified Complaint portion of the lawsuit Nunc Pro Tunc, which said motion the Defendants are opposing as the defendants want that 2nd Amended Verified Complaint stricken. Note: The 2nd Amended Verified Complaint was the only one served on the Defendants.

Atty Apuzzo will likely comment more on this later.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Eligibility Update: Cook v. Simtech Complaint Filed, Dismissed; Kerchner v. Obama Advertorial; Donofrio on Candidate Qualifications

Phil — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:10:34 +0000

Rev. Tom Terry, Plaintiff in a Georgia-based eligibility lawsuit, Terry v. Handel, recently issued the following news release concerning Sergeant Stefan Cook’s latest filing, Cook v. Simtech:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

Telephone Number: 949-683-5411

Email Address: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

Website: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

News Update: Major Stefan Cook Files New Suit Seeking Verification of Legitimacy of Obama as President and Commander-in-Chief.

Tampa, FL. 07/26/2009 – Major Stefan Frederick Cook of Tampa, FL has filed an eight-count “Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief” in Federal District Middle Florida Court in Tampa, FL on 7/24/09. The attorney representing Major Cook is Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., a licensed attorney in California who has filed other cases around the nation seeking discovery of Barack Hussein Obama’s Constitutional qualification as a natural born citizen to be President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of the Military. Dr. Taitz, a licensed dentist in CA, also serves as legal counsel for presidential candidate and former Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes. Dr. Keyes filed a separate suit against Mr. Obama on January 20, 2009 that will be heard in Federal District Court in California by Judge David O. Carter. Keyes’ case is the first court case in which a judge has agreed to hear the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency. The date for Keyes’ hearing has not been set.

Major Cook’s most recent court filing (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3333 ) in Florida District Court follows a July 16 decision by Judge Clay Land in Federal District Middle Georgia Court in Columbus, GA to deny Cook’s request for injunctive relief. The Army moved quickly before that date of hearing to revoke his deployment orders to Afghanistan and Judge Land agreed with the Army’s counsel who argued that the case was then moot.

Asked about the new filing, Maj. Cooks responded: “I hope that this situation is resolved quickly and based on the merits of the arguments – not on the basis of procedural grounds. My expectations are that I shall ultimately be vindicated through either this injunction filed in Florida or through the case filed in California. I passionately want to restore faith in both the Constitution of the United States of America as well as its Government.”

Cook is seeking the Court to declare that his officer’s oath, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God,” requires him to challenge the chain of command if there is a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Obama is a possible Presidential Usurper. His filing asserts that Mr. Obama has taken the office of President under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications since he has withheld his original birth certificate that would verify his U.S. natural born citizenship and thus may be a “domestic enemy”, and “a clear and present danger as an enemy to the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.”

As evidence of his reasonable suspicion, Cook includes in his filing as an exhibit Mr. Obama’s Executive Order # 13489 which he signed on his first day in office as President on January 21, 2009 to permanently ban any and all access to his records. The filing includes other evidences to support his reasonable suspicion of Mr. Obama’s Constitutional qualification: a sworn affidavit by professional investigator Neal Sankey that states that thirty-nine different Social Security Numbers have been registered to Barack Hussein Obama and a list of one hundred forty-nine different addresses belonging to Mr. Obama; a sworn affidavit by renowned forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines that states that “the certification of live birth posted by Mr. Obama as verification of his legitimacy, cannot be verified as genuine, and (the) original birth certificate, currently in the vault of the Department of Health of the state of Hawaii needs to be examined.”

Cook asserts in reference to the thirty-nine social security numbers that one SSN that Mr. Obama uses most often was registered to an individual in Connecticut whose current age is 119 years old. Further, Mr. Obama has never resided in Connecticut and that Mr. Obama’s grandmother, Madeline Dunham, worked as a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court Probate Department and had access to the social security of the deceased person to whom Obama’s most-used social security number was registered. This is circumstantial evidence, asserts Cook, “that casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Obama and his claims of being born on U.S. territory.”

Cook is also seeking the Court to order his employment reinstatement with his previous employer, Simtech, a Department of Defense contractor in Tampa, and protection from further DOD retaliation against himself, Simtech, and Larry Grice, the CEO of Simtech.

Defendants in this case are Simtech, Inc.; Larry Grice, CEO of Simtech; Col. Louis B. Wingate, Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis; Dr. Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense; and Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States.

The date for the hearing has not been set. The filing demands a jury-by-trial according to the U.S. Code, Title 28, Part Five, Chapter 121, § 1861 and the Seventh Amendment.

For more information:

Contact: Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

Telephone Number: 949-683-5411

Email Address: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

Website: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

Update: The case was dismissed:

06 2009-07-27 ORDER Dismissing Case

Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, placed another advertorial in the Washington Times Weekly Edition today:

This is the second week in a row with the British Born additional key point about Obama … one more of his many flaws in his exact citizenship status, i.e., that:

“Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject”

And of course, as a British Subject at birth, Obama is not eligible to be President and the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces since he is not, and never can be, a “natural born citizen” of the USA as is required under Article II of our Constitution, per the intent of the founders of our nation and framers and legal scholars of our Constitution such as Franklin, Jay, and Washington, and per legal constitutional standards.

Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Advertorial in 20090727 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 9

Mr. Kerchner has recently set up a web site, ProtectOurLiberty.org, wherein he is soliciting further donations to help defray the costs of placing these ads. The site goes into a full explanation of the costs involved as well as the types of advertising that is being supported by donations.

In a recent posting, attorney Leo Donofrio makes reference to a certain Arizona candidate qualification form (see more in my Qualifications category) and that he thinks Mr. Obama is guilty of false swearing:

On December 13, 2007 Obama swore to and signed the document below:

[[See also my links to the Virginia document and responses back from various Secretaries of State.]]

And on that same day he forwarded the following document to the Arizona Secretary of State:

The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of theirparents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”.   Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

Obama - the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.

Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.

When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true. If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are - in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.

You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt. You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.

Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father, that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.

The states of Arizona and Virginia accepted as true the false sworn statements by Obama and thereafter placed his name on the ballots. He was then elected President. The voters in Virginia and Arizona were directly defrauded by Obama’s false affirmations.

When Obama swore he was eligible, he lied. He didn’t swear that hemight be eligible or that there was a good chance he would be found eligible. He swore that he was – in fact – eligible. Obama’s certain affirmations under oath and penalty of perjury are false. He could not have been certain and he should not have sworn that he was.   He’s guilty of false swearing despite whatever definition of natural-born citizen comes down the pike.

On December 13, 2007, Obama could not have been certain he was eligible to be POTUS. He may have believed he could be held eligible according to his own hopes and his own analysis of what the current SCOTUS might say. But such an analysis could be nothing more than an intellectual guess. The affirmations demanded that he swear he was - in fact – eligible to be POTUS.

A statesman puts the safety and legal sanity of the nation ahead of himself. Obama reversed that call to honor and placed himself ahead of the law. The law questioned his eligibility but he swore under oath no such question existed.

The proper thing for Obama to have done was raise the issue before the American people prior to the election. Perhaps he could have accomplished this by bringing a law suit to determine whether he could satisfy these affirmations without perjuring himself. He did no such thing. He swore something was true when he knew the truth was in doubt.   Regardless of what SCOTUS might say about this issue in the future, no future holding can change the facts as they existed on December 13, 2007.

Obama has now been intellectually convicted of false swearing.

[Thanks to reader "Lawyer" for the affirmation scans and the legal tip on this issue.]

Dr. Orly Taitz, southern California dentist and eligibility activist and lawyer, recently commented on her blog that a number of high-profile individuals have “be-Friended” her via her Facebook page:

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA, Minority Whip)
Michael Steele (GOP Chairman)
Benjamin Netanyaho (Israeli PM)

The so-called “birthers” must be picking up some steam, as the Politico.com reports that there is evidence that GOP lawmakers are readying their stances should they have to be faced with the People:

And birthers say members should expect more of the same in the coming weeks.

“Absolutely,” says California resident Orly Taitz, the Russian-born attorney/dentist who has become a kind of ringleader for the movement. “It is a very important issue, one that politicians should have taken up a long time ago.”

Moments after speaking with POLITICO Saturday, Taitz posted a call to arms on her blog:

“I believe it is a serious concern and I hope that each and every decent American comes to town hall meetings with a video camera and demands action,” she wrote.

Having seen his colleague Castle come under attack, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) is taking no chances.

“Before I got back to Michigan before the break, we’ll go through it, so that we’re versed in it,” Hoekstra said recently. “Just like anything else, if you see a hot issue … it’s sort of like, ‘Let me go take a look at this and see what the status is.’”

Hoekstra believes there’s no “compelling case” questioning Obama’s origins. But after talking to Castle about his town hall, he knows that he’d better be ready with an answer.

The trick: What do you say?

Of the various approaches a put-on-the-spot pol can take, each carries its own risk of alienating constituents. Pick up a pitchfork in the cause of this conspiracy theory, and you risk damaging your reputation in the mainstream while aligning yourself with a movement some regard as having racist undertones.

Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), co-sponsor of legislation that would force candidates to show their birth certificates, was widely mocked after he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that Obama is a U.S. citizen — “as far as I know.”

However, members who decide to challenge the conspiracy theory, as Castle did mildly, risk ticking off a shrill minority who can upend their events and then post the video on the Web.

And those who try to split the difference may find themselves getting doubly burned.

At a Wyoming town hall in April, birthers jumped on freshman Republican Rep. Cynthia Lummis.

“I’m not questioning your concern,” Lummis told the crowd, according to the Wyoming Eagle Tribune. “I am questioning whether there is credible evidence.”

The congresswoman ended up asking for anyone who had “evidence” to send it to her.

At a walk-in meeting in Sen. Tom Coburn’s Washington office, birthers gave the Oklahoma Republican’s chief of staff nine pages of documentation in support of their claims. The group later billed the meeting a success on one of Taitz’s blogs.

But when asked about the meeting, Coburn spokesman Don Tatro said that the office was simply trying to be “polite” and that “it is possible to mistake politeness for agreement.”

According to his office, Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn has received 33 inquiries about Obama’s origins, with 10 coming in over the past week.

So far, Hoekstra hasn’t faced any such questions.

“When you’re in a state with 15.2 percent unemployment,” he said, “most people have other things on their mind than this.”

But as if to illustrate the touchiness of the subject, Hoekstra quickly added: “Not that this isn’t important.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has also tried to find the elusive middle ground.

“They have a point,” he said of the birthers last week. “I don’t discourage it. … But I’m going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things that I think are very destructive to America.”

Inhofe put out a statement Monday clarifying his comment:

“The point that they make is the Constitutional mandate that the U.S. president be a natural born citizen, and the White House has not done a very good job of dispelling the concerns of these citizens,” he said. “My focus is on issues where I can make a difference to stop the liberal agenda being pushed by President Obama.” …

Republican pollster Whit Ayers says that a member confronted with birther questions should immediately pivot the conversation back to big issues.

“You simply indicate that in a country where our fiscal policy is driving us toward bankruptcy, where we are wrestling with major issues of health care reform and fighting two wars for our safety, you don’t have time to deal with wild conspiracy theories,” he says.

That’s the approach House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana takes.

“On that issue, I’m pretty distinctive that the president is from Hawaii,” he said. “I just don’t know where he’s coming from on health care.”

Such a response might satisfy many, or even most, but Taitz says that until Obama is removed from office, America’s other problems cannot be addressed. The fact that a few members of Congress have taken up her cause, with 10 Republicans signing onto Floria Republican Rep. Bill Posey’s legislation to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, has only encouraged her to buckle down in the fight.

As Taitz sees it, Campbell, who represents her congressional district in Southern California, was moved to co-sponsor the “Birthers’ bill” for fear of people like her.

Campbell spokesperson Muffy Lewis flatly denied that being the case, saying the issue of Obama’s birth certificate is a low priority in the congressman’s district. Plus, Campbell has stressed that the bill would apply only to future candidates — and is really just about avoiding these kinds of controversies in the future.

“It really wasn’t as much about constituents as it was his own principles,” said Lewis. “He thought it was a common-sense bill. Castle had a major issue [in his district], but it hasn’t been much of an issue in ours.”

But Taitz said that lawmakers everywhere should be prepared to “resign or be removed” if they “do not have the guts to stand for the Constitution and this country.”

Asked whether Republican lawmakers should be “afraid” of the birthers, Taitz said: “I wouldn’t say the word ‘afraid.’ I think they should be willing to resign or be removed. That is what they should do. … Resign if you do not have the guts to stand for the Constitution of this country.”

Regarding the blogosphere, a concerned citizen going by the screen name “n152sm” drew my attention to one blogger who didn’t like their dissenting views so much, they got banned from the site.

First comment:

I am not a nutcase or a racist, I present to you facts regardless of skin color or hypothetical assumptions. Your website has a quote at the top of the page: “all truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them”. With this article you are not following your own advice and I pray that you hear what I have learned in my research on this topic.

There are two issues with Obama’s eligibility that were raised before the DNC convention and before the election. They have been taken to the supreme court over 30 times prior to inauguration, only to be told that US citizens have no “standing” or proven “damages” that would allow the lawsuits to be heard. None of these lawsuits were heard based on the merits of fact.

Issue Number One: The only legally presentable definition of “Natural Born Citizen” (one of only three constitutional requirements to be President of the US), was written in Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations (original French version) years before the constitution was written. In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to confirm the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

We know that writers of the US Constitution and other democratic leaders around the world used this book as one of the primary references when writing the constitution. Example – Benjamin Franklin (a signer of our Constitution) wrote this in a letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775,
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

This definition has been confirmed again in at least THREE US supreme Court cases: Minor v. Happersett (1874), US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Perkins v. Elg (1939)

If this is the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” – then Obama is not qualified because his father was not a US citizen according to Obama’s own word.

Issue Number Two: Obama provided a “Certificate of Live Birth” that is provided by the Hawaii Department of Health and is the same certificate issued to CHILDREN BORN ABROAD. This means that unless he submits a Birth Certificate with the doctor and hospital listed – he cannot legally prove he was born in the US. Also, there are birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers listing Obama, however those newspapers confirm that they get all of their announcements from the Hawaii Department of Health, so if Obama was born outside of the US it would still be in the newspaper. Also, there have been comments about the Department of Health confirming that Obama was born in Hawaii – this is not true. Hawaii Health Department Director Fukino verifies that they hold Obama’s original birth certificate in accordance with the department’s policies, however the department nor director Fukino confirmed that he was actually born in Hawaii.

I have been researching this issue since before the DNC convention, and I beg you to provide a more factual investigation. If you doubt the facts I have presented, please comment and provide your sources and I will follow up….but please for the sake of your own intelligence – don’t call me a racist, nutcase, or sicko as you did in your article. Just stick to the facts. I am not having a hissy-fit, lying, pretending, or hating as you also mention in your article. I did my research because I felt I was being lied to – and a lot of US citizens think they are being lied to as well, so give them a fair shot at presenting factual evidence instead of rushing to judgment when you yourself do not have all of the facts.

First response:

First of all sir (or ma’am), I would like to thank you for taking the time to sit down and put your beliefs in writing.

The quote at the top of my blog is by Galileo Galilei, the brilliant astronomer.

I am honest enough to admit that I find it both distressing and supremely offensive the lengths that people will go to to try to discredit our Harvard educated black president who was born in this country. No other president or candidate (including John McCain, born in the Panama Canal) have been put through this nonsense over nothing. It is hysterics.

1. If President Obama was not a citizen, don’t you know that the Clintons would have shut him down, considering how badly she wanted the office of president?

2. I just went upstairs to my file cabinet and pulled out the folder that says “birth certificate”. There are two documents in there. Keep in mind that I was born in Baltimore, Maryland.

Document #1 (which is what was given to my mother when she left the hospital with me) is called “Notification of Birth Registration”. I recall it being rejected when I went for my drivers license many moons ago. They told me to go and order my birth certificate.

Okay, so what I was given and what was accepted by the MVA as well as the Post Office when I applied for my passport is as follows:

State of Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Division of Vital Records
CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH

It goes on to give a state file number, my name and sex, date and place of birth (hospital is not named…only state)….my mother’s first, middle and maiden name and age and state of birth (West Virginia) and my father’s name and age and state of birth (Alabama). The time of my birth is also noted: 3:15 a.m.

NOTE that no place on the form does it mention “birth certificate”. It says exactly what our president’s says. CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH

No doctor is listed and it is NOT signed! However, somewhere on record is the original which I am certain IS signed. My birth weight is not even listed on my birth certificate.

So are you telling me that if I were to run for office, I would not be trusted due to having a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, as Obama has?

My husband was born and raised in New York and I have not seen his birth certificate; however, he told me that his does actually say “birth certificate”. It simply depends on what state you were born in.

3. Newspaper reports from that time verify that he was indeed born there

4. FACTCHECK.org has checked out the documents and verify that the birth certificate is authentic

5. The GOVERNOR of Hawaii checked out the documents (he is a Republican) and verified that they are real

What else does this black man have to do? He was born in Hawaii.

I would suggest that the “birthers” go find a hobby and get over the fact that their brilliant leader is a black man.

Gee wiz!

PRESS HERE to read the verification article by FACTCHECK.org …

Oh, and another thing.

For you to suggest that because President Obama’s father was not born in the country, then Obama (who WAS born here) could not possibly be a citizen is INSANE. INSANE. His mother was also born here by the way.

Do you know how many American citizens are walking around with fathers or mothers or BOTH parents born in China or India or Latin America, etc., yet THEY were born here and are citizens AND are eligible to run for office of the presidency?

Birthers, you are sounding reaaaaaal crazy. Please find a hobby!

The concerned citizen’s follow up response:

Hi Lynn,

Here is a point by point response to your response, I would like to make sure that you and I are on the same page and that you are not misinterpreting the facts I have provided you. I am being very specific….I am not meaning any insult – I trust you are a very smart person.

I understand he is Harvard Educated – do you know who paid for his education, or if he got a grant, what name and citizenship he submitted on his Harvard admissions records? No you don’t because he has them SEALED and will not release them. So are his Occidental College records, and much of his life’s history. Can you really say you have heard of him a year before the primary even when he was a Senator? We really don’t know this guy – and since he is hiding most of his past…one must be cautiously suspicious.

John McCain WAS put through a congressional whatever you want to call it because he was technically born in Panama. Even though he is a War Hero born to two US Citizens serving proudly in the Military on a US military installation overseas. One constitutional expert sued both Obama AND McCain as being technically not Natural Born Citizen for this reason. Also, No other presidential candidate has been allowed to run for office WITHOUT having two US citizen parents because generations have understood the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” requiring US Citizen Parents. (notice I am NOT talking about “Citizen” – Obama can be a Citizen of the US and be a Senator, but he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen which I provided you the history of the definition, understanding, and confirmation in the US Supreme Court via the previous post I made).

Answer to your item 1. I don’t think that many people understand the proper way of verifying or “vetting” a candidate’s qualifications. Is this done at the state level where they have to register to be a candidate? Does the party’s convention do it? Of course he has to be a citizen since he is a seated senator, he looks like he is over 35 years of age, and we assume he has been here 14 years. I am sure that it isn’t something competing candidates really go after, considering if they are wrong that they will basically self-implode in the polls. One Vice-Presidential nominee filed a lawsuit – his name is Alan Keyes, and he has a history in the US, he served under Reagan I think and has been on the political scene for a while.

Answer to your item 2. Your official documents may have come from a state that ONLY issues to children born in that state. The fact is that Hawaii issues these documents to children who have ALSO BEEN BORN ABROAD. So you do NOT know that he was born in Hawaii or in Kenya until you see an official ORIGINAL document that says the hospital and doctor with signature. Yes I am saying that if you refused to release a copy of your birth certificate (when questioned about your virtually unknown past because you have hidden everything else like Obama) I would not trust you.

Answer to your item 3. The newspapers have confirmed that they get their announcements from the Hawaii Department of Health. So – if Obama was born in Kenya, and the Hawaii Department of Health gives his mother a certificate of live birth, then the newspaper will print the announcement of the birth in the Hawaii newspaper. Do you see how this could happen but look very legit and cause people to wonder why people like me are questioning? Even if my suspicions are in fact the truth?

Answer to your item 4. You obviously don’t realize how close Obama and factcheck.org are. That is another discussion. But there is also some legitimate dissecting of the scanned image that shows that this document may have been altered, AND a story that leaked that the Hawaii Department of Health did not issue a paper certificate for Obama or the DNC in the year that they claim they got it. I think it would be best for all of us if he would submit that exact document in a court of law, do you agree?

Answer to you item 5. The governor of Hawaii is a woman not a man. Gov. Linda Lingle made NO statement acknowledging that Obama was born in Hawaii. I beg you to find one. She did however make a statement, as well as Dr Fukino of the Department of Health, and the spokeswoman of that department, that original doctor-generated and hospital-released birth certificate is on file with the state’s health department would be released to the press if Obama so requested. You will not be able to find a quote from any official that they have in fact verified that he was born in Hawaii, only that they have the birth certificate in accordance with their policies (refer to my answer above). I think Obama should request it be released, don’t you?

Don’t bring race into this. I am not a racist and you are insulting me to think that my argument has anything to do with race.

We obviously have to agree to disagree here – I don’t consider him my leader, and although I think he is a very bright guy, I think his strategy is not in the best interest of the American people. Again you mention race – I don’t think it makes you look good to refute my facts with racial remarks.

On your next remark – you are misquoting me. I didn’t say that his father had to be born in the US…I said that in order for Obama to be a “Natural Born Citizen” his father and mother had to be a citizen at the time Obama was born. That is the definition I provided you in the previous post and that is the constitutional requirement to be President of the United States. I am not saying he is not a citizen, however I am not saying that he IS a citizen considering he was adopted by an Indonesian and lived in Indonesia for years as a child. He could have revoked his US citizenship, traveled to Pakistan using his Indonesian passport, and received US federal grants for education provided to foreigners for Occidental AND Hahvaad (oops, Harvard). But I can’t prove that, and you and others cannot prove otherwise until we see the documents.

Again, you are trying to argue against my facts by calling me crazy, why don’t you just stick to the facts. And Again – this really has nothing to to about whether he is a US citizen – you have to be a Natural Born Citizen which has been defined as one born on a country’s soil to parents who are citizens of that country. His mother was a citizen, his father was NOT a citizen, and so it doesn’t matter if he was born in the US but we aren’t REALLY sure he was born in Hawaii anyway.

Let me know if you can find facts to dispute this. I will add them to my research.

Lynn’s response, response:

When you realize that people are stuck on whatever their false belief is, it would be beyond insane to keep engaging the person.

So now FactCheck.org is “friends” with Obama and that is why they were able to check out the documents and prove it’s authentic.

The conspiracy is sooooo deep that even the governor of Hawaii (a republican) is in on it…and of course his mother knew when he was a baby that he’d run for president so she quickly put in a birth announcement in the local newspapers.

Okay. Whatever. I’m through with this. Thanks for taking the time to share your views. …

By the way, this “N152sm” character is obsessed with Barack Obama. A Google search showed numerous boards he is on to discredit our president. I really wish this guy would find a hobby. Nascar?

http://theobamafile.lefora.com/n152sm/blog/

http://twitter.com/n152sm

http://usjf.net/archives/1251

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/release-the-vault-copy.html

…and then, the ban:

COMMENTS REMOVED BY LYNN

1. Don’t come into my “house” making little snide remarks

2. Don’t come in here telling me what quotes I need to remove on something I’m paying for out of my pocket

Why are you still coming here? I gave you space to spew forth your vomit.

You are barking up the wrong tree, as the people here have written you off as a lunatic.

I posted links to other blogs to show your obsession with President Obama.

BANNED – Don’t come back here. Take it elsewhere.

Door slammed! Comments on this thread are closed.

Lynn

While I believe that Lynn has every right to manage her site as she sees fit, and while site banishment of users occurs on both “sides” of the eligibility issue, I think the casual observer of my site will see quite the contrast between how this individual deals with opposition commentary versus how I do. In other words, I take pride in the fact that my site has hosted quite the vigorous debate between those who think eligibility should be questioned versus those who don’t, as long as such discussions remain civil. And, to date, I’ve actually banned nobody from my site.

On a more positive note, I appreciate the fact that Sean and Frank of Talk Radio 680 WCBM has TRSoL listed as one of their Favorite Sites. I’ve added that to my collection of notable sitings in my In The Media page.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Kerchner v. Obama: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Filed

Phil — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:24:34 +0000

Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, reports that he has filed a Plaintiff’s Brief Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 34 Plaintiffs Brief Opposing Defendants Motion to Dismiss

In the above, Mr. Apuzzo is also requesting that the Court “Alternatively to Strike the Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition.” According to LectLaw.com, here’s a definition of “nunc pro tunc:”

Nunc pro tunc literally means “now for then.”

Occasionally, a court or party to a divorce forgets to file the papers necessary to obtain the final decree (after the interlocutory judgment has been granted), and the result is that the divorce never becomes final. If the oversight presents a problem (for example, one party has already remarried, or there is a tax advantage to being divorced earlier), the court may agree to issue a nunc pro tunc order, which grants the final divorce retroactive to the earlier date.

This phrase is used to express that a thing is done at one time which ought to have been performed at another. Leave of court must be obtained to do things nunc pro tunc, and this is granted to answer the purposes of justice, but never to do injustice. A judgment nunc pro tunc can be entered only when the delay has arisen from the act of the court.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Talk Shows, Press Begin Covering Eligibility

Phil — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:10:50 +0000

One might think that the proverbial Pandora’s Box has been opened — it appears that more and more talk shows and press outlets are taking on the presidential eligibility issue — and in earnest.

Most recently, the Columbus, Georgia-based Ledger-Enquirer had run with the story of Major Cook. In fact, this has been such a major story for the paper that they recently wrote about their internal experiences with the issue, including the following stats:

The Cook v. Good story produced the most traffic of any story ever in the history of the local paper
More than 1,000 comments from readers were produced, including (unfortunately) a number of threats against the newspaper
The paper received almost 500,000 unique hits (readers who had never previously accessed the paper)
- A prominent spot on The Drudge Report was responsible for 84% of this new traffic
The paper received 712,251 page views, 7 times their normal volume
The reporter herself received hundreds of emails once the story broke
At the Courthouse, a number of public safety agencies were involved to make sure the grounds were secure, including assets from the following areas:
- Columbus Police Department
- Phenix City Police Department
- Muscogee County Sheriff’s Office
- Columbus Fire and Emergency Medical Services
- US Marshall’s Office

One of the major papers in Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, also picked this story up, and one of their bloggers wasted no time in expressing his disdain towards the eligibility question.

A reporter from Sonoran News out of Cave Creek, Arizona has recently run some notable stories on this issue, such as “Ghana apparently didn’t get the memo” (with quite the honorable mention to my bodaciously kewl web site — many thanks for that!) and “Allen v. Soetoro assured standing in FOIA claim.”

Tomorrow, Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in the currently pending case Kerchner v. Obama, will have his newest advertorial printed in The Washington Times Weekly Edition:

Newest version of Advertorial Series 2 inserted in tomorrow’s issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition, on page 9. This one introduces to the readers of the paper and points out that Obama was a British Subject at birth in 1961. With citizenship of another country at birth, i.e., in Obama’s case British citizenship at birth he is not, and can never be, a natural born citizen of the USA. Also this insertion points out that the framers such as Franklin, Jay, Washington, and others used Vattel in the drafting of the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

To help the cause and do more such advertorial insertions in national newspapers see: http://www.protectourliberty.org And to all the patriots that have helped to-date, I thank you.

Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Advertorial in 20090720 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 9

Then we get to the talk show hosts. Back on June 10th, talk show king Rush Limbaugh quipped about the birth certificate, making mention that the lack thereof was one thing that Mr. Obama and God had in common.

Sirius-XM satellite radio talk show host Lynn Samuels says that the President is “lying” about his birthplace (h/t TheObamaFile.com):

Next, New York City radio talk host Steve Malzberg made some commentary:

And then there was Lou Dobbs of CNN fame:

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy TCUNation.com

Kerchner v. Obama Eligibility Ad Placed in Weekly Paper

Phil — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:08:55 +0000

Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, placed another advertisement in the weekly edition of the Washington Times today. This week marks the second week in a row that the following ad has run in the newspaper:

Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Advertorial in 20090713 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 9

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Eligibility Update: Kerchner v. Obama Plaintiff Time Extension Granted; HR1503; NRO on Obama, Docs

Phil — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:30:54 +0000

Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, reported that he had asked the Court for additional time during which to respond to the Defendant’s previously-filed Motion to Dismiss. He has now posted that the Court has granted his time extension:

The new motion day is Monday, August 3, 2009. I will file our opposition papers at least 14 days prior to the new motion day, and the defendants shall file their reply papers, if any, at least seven calendar days prior to August 3, 2009.

WorldNetDaily reports that Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-FL) HR1503 — a bill introduced in Congress that would direct the Federal Election Commission to, among other things, receive background documentation, including birth certificates, from any presidential candidate’s campaign — has recently garnered two additional cosponsors…

The newest additions are Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

They joined Reps. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; and Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, in support of Posey’s H.R. 1503 plan.

A spokesman for Blackburn said in Tennessee a 16-year-old has to document his or her birth to get a driver’s license. Her constituents, the spokesman said, were losing faith in the system because of the absence of a requirement for the president to show evidence of his or her eligibility.

Carter spokesman Brent Hall said it just seemed logical to address the issue so that the question never reappears in future elections.

A participant at a forum on a political website noted “average citizens have to have a copy of our birth certificate just to apply for a passport, but the president of the United States doesn’t have to show theirs??? This doesn’t make sense at all.”

Besides the support that is growing in the U.S. House, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., [my link] says he’s in favor of both state and federal demands that future presidential candidates have a formal procedure to document their qualifications.

“The bill requires any federal candidates’ campaign committee filing with the Federal Election Commission to produce a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate,” Coburn wrote. “If the bill makes it to the Senate, I will likely support it.”

WND earlier reported when Posey talked about his idea on a radio program..

“The last election is over,” Posey said in the interview. “I don’t think that outcome is going to change. Personally, I think it’s futile to go there, but looking toward the future I think it would be reckless if we do not do everything we could to eliminate problems like that in the future. And that’s why I filed the bill.”

His comments came on the Andrea Shea King Show.

“I don’t think a Supreme Court would remove a president from office if they heard the case. But … we should make a good faith effort to make sure that things in the future are as they should be,” he said.

National Review Online’s David Kahane presents commentary on the perceived logistics behind former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s resignation and, in the process, suggests that journalists ought to go after “Barry’s” birth certificate and other background documentation, if they are to be even-handed about things:

If you had any sense, you would start using our tactics against us. After all, you have a few lawyers on your side. Sue us. File frivolous ethics complaints against all our elected officials until, like Sarah, they go broke from defending themselves. (David Paterson would be a good place to start.) Challenge the constitutionality of BO²’s legion of fill-in-the-blank czars — none of whom have to be confirmed, or even pass a security check. (Come to think of it, neither did Barry.) Let slip your own journalistic dogs of war, assuming you have any, to find Barry’s birth certificate, his college transcripts, whether he applied to Occidental as a foreign student, and on which passport he traveled in 1981 to Pakistan with his friend Wahid Hamid, for starters.

You might also want to think about interviewing New York literary agent Jane Dystel, who a) contacted the totally unknown Obama in the wake of an adulatory New York Times piece in 1990 and b) got him a $125,000 advance for a memoir that c) he couldn’t write, even after a long sojourn in Bali, which d) got the contract canceled, whereupon e) Dystel got him $40,000 from another publisher, following which f) the book finally came out to glowing reviews and g) Obama fired her. Wouldn’t she have an interesting story to tell?

Of course, you won’t. You’re too nice, too enamored of history and tradition to realize that the rules have changed. Remember, I live and work in a town where, “Hello, he lied,” isn’t a joke; we men of the Left are perfectly comfortable lying, cheating, and stealing — hello, Senator Franken! — in order to attain and keep political power. Not for nothing is one of our mottos, “By Any Means Necessary.” You see, we’re the good guys, and for us the ends always justify the means. We are, literally, shameless, which is why Bill Clinton is now a multi-millionaire and Eliot Spitzer is already on the comeback trail.

In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, “the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” This is the book that “Reset” Rodham (what ever happened to her?) and BHO II grew up reading and continue to live by. If you don’t understand that that’s the way we see you — as the enemy — then you’re too dumb to survive. Remember that for us politics is not just an avocation, or even just a job, but our life. We literally stay awake nights thinking up ways to screw you. And one of the ways we do that is by religiously observing Alinsky’s Rule No. 4.

Did Sarah stand for “family values”? Flay her unwed-mother daughter. Did she represent probity in a notoriously corrupt, one-family state? Spread rumors about FBI investigations. Did she speak with an upper-Midwest twang? Mock it relentlessly on Saturday Night Live. Above all, don’t let her motivate the half of the country that doesn’t want His Serene Highness to bankrupt the nation, align with banana-republic Communist dictators, unilaterally dismantle our missile defenses, and set foot in more mosques than churches since he has become president. We’ve got a suicide cult to run here.

And that’s why Sarah had to go. Whether she understood it or not, she threatened us right down to our most fundamental, meretricious, elitist, sneering, snobbish, insecure, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders bones. She was, after all, a “normal” American, the kind of person (or so I’m told) you meet in flyover country. The kind that worries first about home and hearth and believes in things like motherhood and love of country the way it is, not the way she wants to remake it.

What you clowns need, in other words, is a Rules for Radical Conservatives to explain what you’re up against and teach you how to compete before it’s too late. Luckily, since I care about money even more than I care about politics, I have just such a book in the proposal stage, currently making the rounds of various publishers, assuming any of them are wise enough to take me up on it.

And, yes, this time it really is personal.

— David Kahane is pushing for a new national holiday to commemorate the destruction of Sarah Palin, and is hopeful that his senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, will co-sponsor it, along with Henry Waxman in the House. You can second the motion atkahanenro@gmail.com or on Facebook.

Other updates include the following:

As had been originally reported via a commenter in a previous posting here, it appears that both UPI and Snopes.com have decided to change their stories regarding Mr. Obama’s birthplace (at least Snopes.com maintains both Hawaiian locations as potential birthplaces for the President);
WorldNetDaily similarly reports, as I have, that Hawaiian officials now accept short-form certifications for proof of citizenship for certain State programs. It is important to note that State program eligibility is mutually exclusive from presidential eligibility and that the long-form certificates are still available, especially in person.
TheObamaFile.com has an analysis for why FightTheSmears.com is currently offline.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil