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 firstcourt 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.
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.
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.
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, recentlycommentedonher blog that a number of high-profile individuals have “be-Friended” her via her Facebook page:
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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:
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:
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.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, had recently placed an advertisement concerning his case in the Washington Times. Today, the Times is running a second ad highlighting both his case and the eligibility issue as a full pager:
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.
As he puts it:
If the People want the usurper Obama out, they have to support people like me and Attorney Apuzzo at this point. I cannot do this all by myself. Attorney Apuzzo is donating his time for this case pro-bono. But there is still need for substantial amounts of funds to pursue efforts such as publicity for the case, now and going forward. Except for a few spontaneous donations in the last six months, I have carried the out of pocket cash financial load for this case’s legal service fees and court costs, etc., and the advertising, now for almost 6 months. The costs are now at a level that I need help. So I decided at this point to ask for help with the advertising part of the costs. Please spread the word of this new initiative. Thank you.
The site goes into a full explanation of the costs involved as well as the types of advertising that is being supported by donations.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, had filed a Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009 (a brief background can be found here). He posted an update concerning the status of this case today:
There are many who want an update on what is going on with the court in the Kerchner case. The court listed the defendants’ (Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) motion for a second extension of time to answer or otherwise move as to the amended complaint for June 1, 2009. Not receiving any decision from the court as of June 5, 2009, I contacted Judge Schneider’s law clerk on June 5, 2009. She advised me that the June 1, 2009 date was a tentative date, with the court being able to decide the motion either before or after the date. She told me that the defendants’ motion was still pending and that “they” were working on it. She was not able to give me any more specific information as to when we can expect a decision.
I know that many of you are frustrated and have lost faith in the integrity of our legal system. I know that many of you do not believe that, given that we are so far post election and the lack of any support from our political leaders, institutions, and mainstream media, a court will have the moral and legal courage to do what you believe to be justice. But at this point, we can only believe and hope in a court honoring the Constitution and the rule of law by upholding the original intent of the Founding Fathers on the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” …
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British subject when he was born in Kenya. When Obama Jr. was born in 1961, his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father a British subject. At the time of his birth, his father, being in the U.S. only on a temporary basis to study, was not even a permanent resident or immigrant. When Obama was born, under the same British Nationality Act of 1948, he automatically became a British subject by decent from his father. Obama Jr., having a British father and being born a British subject himself, along with presumably being a United States citizen under a liberal and probably erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment (if he was born in the U.S.), was born with multiple allegiances and therefore fails the law of nations test and is not eligible under Article II to be President.
Moreover, given how Obama has so far comported himself and poorly represented the interests of the United States internationally, I doubt that he knows and appreciates that he “ought therefore to love [America] . . .” and “express a just gratitude to it, and requite its service as far as possible by serving it in turn.” Vattel.
Only our courts and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court are able to tell America what a “natural born Citizen” is, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The fate and future of and what type of nation America is going to be is all in their hands. In our Constitutional Republic, we have to allow due process to take its course and wait for their decision.
A primer on eligibility can be found here; Mr. Obama’s “sealed from public view” background documentation can be found here; a current listing of citizen grand jury updates and eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
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:
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…
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.”
“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.”
“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 at[email protected] 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.
Update: It appears that WorldNetDaily’s recent article concerning public comment on this case was, at the very least, misleading. The following is a full explanation by a concerned citizen who had recently heard Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner on The Chalice Show:
Family Security Matters and other bloggers:
Hello. I’m writing you all because of various post(s) on your websites pertaining to a letter writing campaign to a judge in the Kerchner v. Obama case.
First of all, the judge did not solicit these letters; people sent them on their own initiative and they were added to the record. We don’t actually know why the judge added them, or if any will be added in the future (they might be, they might not; we don’t know for sure). In fact public letters being added like this is a very rare thing. Typically if an outsider wants to comment on a case, it has to be done via an amicus curiae brief. But for some reason, these letters were added to the record, and Kerchner is now encouraging people to send more letters. We don’t know if they will be added to the record or not, but they may.
Second, June 29th is NOT the letter deadline. There is no official letter deadline. June 29th was just the due date for the government’s response; they responded last week by filing a motion to dismiss, so June 29th is now out of the picture. The court will rule on the government’s motion to dismiss on July 20th, so people definitely need to get their letters in before then, and certainly they should do so as soon as possible.
Third, messages sent via fax may not be accepted. They might, but they might not. http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/FAQS.html#faxpleadings states that procedure requires original documents, so sending letters via USPS or FedEx is far more reliable if people actually want their letters to possibly be added to the record.
Fourth, letters need to be addressed not only to Judge Joel Schneider, but also to Judge Jerome B. Simandle. Judge Schneider is the referring magistrate judge; he is outranked by the presiding district court judge, Judge Simandle. Any letters should be addressed to BOTH judges. A good form is this:
The Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle, presiding
The Honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, referring
Mitchell H. Cohen Building & U.S. Courthouse
4th & Cooper Streets, Room 1050
Camden, NJ 08101
People also need to remember when writing their letters that this has to do with the Constitution and nothing else. If the judges gets letters saying things like “You have to stop Obama or else we will be destroyed by socialism,” it can only cause damage to this case. The courts are not a political branch, nor should they be. The courts are there to apply the law, not dabble in politics. The purpose of this letter campaign should be to highlight the significant Constitutional matters at hand and urge the judges to hear the case on Constitutional grounds and render fair and impartial judgment accordingly.
As an independent blogger, I also do my best to get things as correctly as possible before posting; that sometimes means that incomplete information gets posted and concerned citizens — from both sides — let me know what they think. Further, while I overall respect the efforts by WorldNetDaily and similar organizations, the bottom line to me is that if they get something wrong, then they get something wrong, and they need to change when appropriate.
Mr. Apuzzo also mentioned that the Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss:
The defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit was received today and is posted on the PACER system as Document 27. A copy of the motion and the supporting brief from the defendants’ attorney is available in the right frame of this blog. After months of stalling, this was the next expected tactic and has been the typical tactic used by Obama when he was just a candidate. But when he became the President Elect, and then was sworn in as the President, his position changed from being a mere candidate exerting his 1st Amendment political right to run, to becoming the President Elect and thus having to prove he is eligible under Article II of our Constitution. And the Congress failed us all by not vetting Obama as was their duty. Knowing their tactics, it was expected that they would try to move for a dismissal in this case too and we have been preparing for it. The motion return date is July 20, 2009. We of course will file a document opposing their dismissal motion prior to that date.
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.
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:
Defendants, Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint/petition. Their main argument is that the plaintiffs do not have standing and that all the defendants have immunity from all of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.
The current defense motion to dismiss the complaint/petition was returnable Friday, July 20, 2009. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due by Monday, July 6, 2009.
The defendants took over 4 months to file their motion. I was only given 2 weeks to respond. Given the critical importance of this case, the complexity and novelty of the constitutional issues, and the need to do a thorough job, I sought fit to request a 2-week extension of time to answer the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
I realize that by the extension we are losing two weeks, but winning the motion is more important than not losing the two weeks.
The new motion day is Friday, 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.
I know that many of you have been posting on this blog your thoughts and analysis on how we can defeat the defendants’ motion. Your input is highly appreciated. I am asking that you continue to give me your ideas in this public blog. I encourage the open exhange of ideas so that we may all arrive at the best answer. Only stategy and personal matters will be treated confidentially. I will appreciate that if you do have a point you want to make, you provide a citation to support what you are saying, if a citation exists. If you do not have a citation, still make your argument. I will consider all comments and choose which points to incorporate into our opposition brief.
The points to research and comment on are standing and immunity. For a full reading of how the defendants are using these defenses to try to convince the judicial branch of government not to address the issue of Obama’s Article II “natural born Citizen” eligibility, you may clique on the link in this blog and view the defendants’ brief that they filed in support of their motion to dismiss.
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, reports that US Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider granted the Defendant’s second request for a time extension in this case (Court document follows).
As Mr. Apuzzo noted on April 13, the government is always given 60 days by which to respond to any complaint brought against it. On that same date, the federal government requested an additional 15 days by which to respond, making the deadline May 5, 2009 for any motions on their part. Subsequently, per paragraph 10 of the motion, the Defendants had requested an additional 20 days to respond. Today’s order now makes the new deadline June 29, 2009.
Mr. Apuzzo is in New Jersey Superior Court over the next two days on another case and will be responding to this Order sometime thereafter.
Of the reasons for the time extension request, Assistant US Attorney Elizabeth Pascal mentioned that Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had both requested the DOJ to represent them in this matter. Also, Attorney Pascal mentioned in the Defense’s original motion:
“I was unaware that I could move for an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint pending the representation decision for those Defendants”
“The Department is still processing that request and determining which Congressional Defendants it will represent.”
She also noted in a later paragraph:
“The delay in filing a response in this case would in no way prejudice the Plaintiffs, but would provide a fair opportunity for the Department to respond appropriately to the allegations in the Complaint…”
A footnote to this paragraph stated:
“The Second Amended Complaint is extensive, as it is comprised of 12 counts, with 347 paragraphs and 43 single-spacedendnotes of allegations, and a 30-paragraph prayer for relief.”
The following is the actual Court document; key paragraphs are highlighted below the embedded document…
Update: Mr. Apuzzo expanded on his original posting (linked above) with the following:
When you read the order you will see that the court addressed this second request for an extension in great detail in his five page order. On page two the Judge writes, “In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United States.” Then on page four the Judge writes, “Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests.” The Judge points out that the Department of Justice still has not decided who is going to represent whom for the seven defendants in the case. Later he then writes, “The Court is confident that after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that the case will proceed expeditiously.” The Judge of course noted that we opposed the extension. And previously on page two, the Judge noted, “The Court has also received numerous letters from non-parties opposing Defendants’ motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25].” The order was written and signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider who serves at the:
United States Courthouse
400 Cooper Street
Camden NJ 08102-1570
I will comment in more detail later.
Notable quotes in the Judge’s Order include the following:
[Assistant United States Attorney] Ms. [Elizabeth A.] Pascal also notes that former Vice President Richard Cheney has requested representation from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which was granted. (Id. at ¶7.) To date no attorney from the DOJ, besides Ms. Pascal, has entered an appearance. Inaddition, Ms. Pascal notes that other Defendants in the case requested representation from the DOJ but these requests are still being processed. …
Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ motion. [Doc. No. 21]. The Court has also received and reviewed numerousletters from non-parties opposing Defendants’ motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24,25]. …
In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United States. …
In support of her present motion, Ms. Pascal argues that on April 24, 2009 shelearned that Defendant Cheney requested and was granted representation by the DOJ. Ms.Pascal further argues that on April 9, 2009, she learned that Defendants Pelosi and the House of Representatives also requested representation by the DOJ, which has not yet been decided. Ms. Pascal seeks additional time to answer, move or otherwise respond on behalf of all the Congressional Defendants in order to allow the DOJ time to complete the representation determinations. Ms. Pascal argues that the failure to file an answer orotherwise respond before the time required by the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not the result of any neglect on Defendants’ part. …
Ms. Pascal argues that granting an extension of time to respond toPlaintiffs’ complaint will not prejudice Plaintiffs. …
The Court finds good cause to grant Defendants an extension of time and will therefore grant Defendants’ motion. The Court finds that Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint in a timely manner was not caused by any neglect. Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the Defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in the case is not simple and straightforward. Thus, since Defendants need more time to identify and engage counsel,their request for more time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. There is no evidence that Defendants have acted in bad faith in failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint or in requesting an extension oftime to respond. The Court further finds that granting Defendants an extension of time will not prejudice Plaintiffs or materially delay the resolution of the case. The Court is confident that after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that the case will proceed expeditiously. …
ORDERED that this ORDER is entered without prejudice to Defendants’ right torequest additional time to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint provided good cause is shown.
As a non-attorney casual observer, it appears to me that the following sentiments are true:
Other high-profile Defendants being named has forced this case to become much more time-consuming;
The Defendants are not easily dismissing this case for the fact that the President’s eligibility is not the sole grievance about which the Plaintiffs are petitioning the Judiciary; of key note for the Plaintiffs is the absence of a call for objections during the 2008 Joint Session of Congress;
The Order is entered without prejudice, which means, in theory, the Defense could move for yet additional time to respond.
Other than the above, I look forward to hearing back from Mr. Apuzzo on his take of this recent Order.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga: