Part 2 List of Law Cases, Updates, and Links,
and Other Legal Developments
Last Modified: 5:36 AM, December 28, 2010
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118403
Closed Chrysler dealers to drive Obama eligibility
Seeking damages for lost businesses, will question administration's
'authority'
Posted: December 08, 2009
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
9:18 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Two lawyers have joined forces to assemble a case challenging in U.S.
bankruptcy court the federal government's use of Troubled Asset Relief
Program funds to bail out Chrysler and in doing so may have created a
scenario that finally will bring to a head the issue of Barack Obama's
eligibility to be president.
The attorneys are Leo Donofrio, who has launched cases directly challenging
Obama's eligibility, and Stephen Pidgeon, who also has worked on the issue.
Their new case questions the authority by which the federal government and
administration officials intervened in the auto industry, specifically allocating
some $8 billion-plus to Chrysler, which later was forgiven.
Pidgeon told WND the clients in the case are former Chrysler dealers who
lost their businesses as part of the "restructuring" of the automobile
company. They have been damaged with the loss of their businesses, and
the case alleges the Obama administration, through its use of TARP money,
influenced Chrysler's outcome.
Donofrio told WND the core issue is the disbursement of TARP funds to the
auto maker that were intended to help banks and financial institutions.
The previous Treasury secretary had indicated such expenditures were not
appropriate, and, in fact, a congressional effort to authorize the
expenditures failed, he said.
So, along with a bankruptcy court challenge, a "quo warranto" case is being
filed in Washington, D.C., demanding to know by what authority
administration officials set up the financial arrangements with Chrysler and
handed out taxpayer money. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/14/carter-sets-hearing-in-barnettvs-obama/
Carter sets Hearing in Barnett vs. Obama
WILL CONSIDER TAITZ’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF HIS OCT.
RULING
by John Charlton
______________________________________________________
http://tiny.cc/kfwsn
CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION
09-285
IN POLICE PENSION TRUST, ET AL. V. CHRYSLER LLC, ET AL.
The motion of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. for leave
to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is
granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss
the appeal as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36
(1950) (snip)
______________________________________________________
Excerpts from Leo Donofrio's special commentary 12/15/2009 on this
Supreme Court ruling:
"This was a very wise choice by the SCOTUS."
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/analysis-of-december14-2009-us-supreme-court-decision-regarding-chrylser-sale/
"This decision today is somewhat helpful to our case in that by vacating the
lower court’s judgment, the US Supreme Court has stripped the prior Court
of Appeals ruling of having any precedential effect on our clients."
"The TARP issue is not related to our pending filing in the Bankruptcy Court,
but it will be part of our Quo Warranto action in the DC District Court."
______________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121393
Obama eligibility attorney charges case rife with fraud
Asks court for 'evidentiary hearing for possible criminal prosecution'
Posted: January 08, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
8:05 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
An attorney who has been involved in several cases alleging Barack Obama
isn't qualified to be president because he is not a "natural born citizen" as
required by the Constitution now is asking a California judge in investigate
possible fraud against the court.
Orly Taitz, who has, among other cases, one pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals on behalf of a member of the military wondering whether
orders from Obama as commander-in-chief are valid, said the possibility of
fraud is one of several concerns in the case.
"There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and Social
Security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests
this honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an
evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution,"
she wrote in her latest arguments that also request the case be moved to
Washington, D.C.
She noted the respondent, Obama, "has submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of this honorable court and can be brought to a separate
evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court
by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or
closed for one reason or another."
She also asked that the U.S. attorney's office, which has been representing
Obama's interests in the case, be barred from participating "due to the
obvious inherent conflict of interest."
Taitz told WND a hearing is scheduled Jan. 25, and the outcome is up to
Judge David Carter. The judge earlier dismissed the case in a ruling that
noted the appropriate venue would be the District of Columbia, where
Obama's political office is based. (snip)
______________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122587
Appeals court told Obama 'security risk'
Eligibility case says 'usurper' lacks 'constitutional authority'
Posted: January 20, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
9:44 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have been told President
Obama is a "security risk" and a "usurper" lacking constitutional authority
since he admitted a dual citizenship at birth, thus making him ineligible for
the office under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the president be a
"natural born citizen."
The brief was filed in a case WND previously reported brought by lead
plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January 2009 on behalf of
Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H.
Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S.,
Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick
Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides
that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral
College Electors."
The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a
British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case
contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the
requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual
citizens.
Plaintiffs allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in
Hawaii. They also allege that even if he was so born, he cannot be an Article
II 'natural born citizen' because his father was a British subject/citizen when
Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of
which makes him ineligible to be president and commander in chief of the
military," the appeal said.
Further, it explains Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship when Kenya gained
its independence from Britain. Further doubts are raised by his relationship
with an Indonesian stepfather during his childhood and his travels
Pakistan in 1981.
to
In an online commentary, Kerchner said, "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 lifetime. 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 … to the USA as is required per the Constitution," he
said.
The appeal further challenges that not only might Obama not be a "natural
born citizen," he might not even be in the United States legally.
"If Obama was not born in the United States, there exists a possibility that
Obama could be an illegal alien," it states.
The brief notes Obama's campaign website Fight the Smears documented his
British citizenship through his father at his birth.
"Neither has the 14th Amendment nor any U.S. Supreme Court decision, nor
any act of Congress, changed the original common law definition of an
Article II natural born citizen (to be distinguished from a 'citizen of the
United States') which is a child born in the country to a United States citizen
mother and father," the appeal said.
"Plaintiffs are requesting that the court enforce the United States
Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and not allow Obama to amend
the Constitution by usurpation," the brief said.
The case had been dismissed at the district court level, based on the judge's
ruling that plaintiffs didn't have "standing" to bring the complaint……
The appeal said, "If Obama is not an Article II 'natural born citizen,' plaintiffs
cannot trust him to protect them. In such a case, plaintiffs have a right
under the Fifth Amendment to bring an action against Obama and Congress
in which they seek to protect their own life, liberty, and property, including
their safety, security and tranquility, and to have Obama removed from
office because he is not a 'natural born citizen.' These are real and concrete
life and death needs,
The district judge had argued that all Americans were in the same position,
so the plaintiffs didn't have a specific complaint against the president, but
the brief asserted otherwise.
"Is it not true that there are millions of Americans who welcome Obama to
continue to be sitting as president regardless of whether he is eligible?" the
brief said. The injuries to the plaintiffs, therefore, are "particular."
"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," Kerchner said. "Obama, despite all his obfuscations to
date, must prove to constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that
seat."
The lawyer also explains the Constitution provides, "If the president-elect
shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as
president until a president shall have qualified."
Apuzzo has explained that it is significant the lower court did not rule Obama
was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.
It simply said the case was dismissed because of the jurisdictional issue.
"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," the
attorney said.
"A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it
prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications," he has
explained. "The court's opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition
did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to
dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of
whether Obama is an Article II 'natural born citizen.' (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
For a January 22, 2010 interview of Charles Kerchner and Attorney Mario
Apuzzo, go tohttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow/2010/01/23/theandrea-shea-king-show
_____________________________________________________________
Quo Warranto filed today(1/25/10) in the DC District Courts against Obama.
QW: SCRIBD; http://www.scribd.com/doc/25814311/Orly-s-Quo-Warrantoin-DC-1-25-10
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/25/orly-taitz-seeks-support-forpolitical-campaign/
Orly Taitz seeks support for political Campaign
AIMS FOR CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR SECRETARY-OFSTATE OFFICES
by John Charlton
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123428
D.C. court case demands Obama explain eligibility
Contends president's allegiance is to Britain, Kenya, Indonesia
Posted: January 29, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
12:20 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A prominent attorney who has shepherded a number of high-profile legal
cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has brought a
"Quo Warranto" case to district court in Washington, D.C., alleging his
allegiances have included Britain, Kenya and Indonesia.
A Quo Warranto action, first recorded some 800 years ago, essentially is a
demand to know by what authority a public figure is acting. The case,
brought by California attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of herself, was assigned
to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth.
Taitz told WND that in a separate action she has filed a notice of appeal with
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of a case she brought
on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes and dozens of other individuals in
California challenging Obama's eligibility.
She previously attempted Quo Warranto cases on behalf of government
officials, without response. This time she filed the action directly with the
court on her own behalf.
"The case revolves around the federal question of eligibility of the
president under Quo Warranto," she wrote.
An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only
judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and
agents."
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the
Foundation on Moral Law, an organization founded by former Alabama
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, previously told WND the demand
was a legitimate course of action.
"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told
WND when the issue first arose. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by
what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'" (snip)
__________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123843
Courts can remove ineligible chief executive
Precedent cited in appeal of California challenge to president's
tenure
Posted: February 01, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
9:58 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh
In the United States, courts can, in fact, remove a chief executive officer of
a government if that officer is found to be ineligible, according to a court
precedent cited in an appeal of a California lawsuit that challenges Barack
Obama's legitimacy in the White House.
A multitude of cases have been brought over the issue of Obama's
eligibility………………
The disputes revolve around the Constitution's demand that the president be
a "natural born citizen."
Now in an appeal of a state court case in California that named as a
defendant California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, attorney Gary Kreep
of the United States Justice Foundation is arguing that there already are two
precedents that should be applied: one in a court case in which state officials
removed from the ballot a nominee for president simply because he did not
meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements…………
"We're seeking to bar anyone from going on the presidential ballot in 2012
unless they can prove that they're eligible," Kreep told WND.
"Appellants contend that Bowen has a duty to ensure that all candidates in
the state of California, for both federal and state offices, meet the eligibility
requirements for the offices sought, that Bowen did not fulfill said duty, and
that a court determination is needed to ensure that the California secretary
of state comply with this duty in the future," the brief said.
The original case sought to prevent Bowen from certifying California's
electors for the Electoral College vote; it later was amended to correct the
deficiencies it identified in future elections.
It explains the appellants have standing in the case because court precedent
states "a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the
inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival … on the theory that doing so hurts
the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing." (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26220535/Allen-v-Soetoro-ORDERDISMISSING-CASE-16-Feb-1-2010
February 1, 2010 dismissal of an Arizona case.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=124023
Chrysler bankruptcy lawyers raise eligibility question
Defense of dealer dismissals cites question of Obama's birth
Posted: February 03, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
8:34 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh
Lawyers defending the government-orchestrated deal by which Chrysler was
purchased by Fiat and hundreds of dealers were thrown out of the network
have raised President Barack Obama's eligibility for office as a possible issue
in the dispute……..
The new case challenges the government's intervention in the auto industry,
specifically allocating some $8 billion-plus to Chrysler, which later was
forgiven.
Pidgeon told WND the plaintiffs in the case are former Chrysler dealers who
lost their businesses as part of the "restructuring" of the automobile
company. They have been damaged with the loss of their businesses, and
the case alleges the Obama administration, through its use of TARP money ,
influenced Chrysler's outcome.
Donofrio told WND the core issue is the disbursement of TARP funds to the
automaker that were intended to help banks and financial institutions. The
previous Treasury secretary had indicated such expenditures were not
appropriate, and, in fact, a congressional effort to authorize the
expenditures failed, he said.
The team of attorneys confirmed that a "quo warranto" case is possible but
it is not connected to the TARP case. Nothing has been filed to date.
Donofrio originally confirmed questions in that scenario could include a
demand for details about Obama's eligibility. Donofrio contends that since by
Obama's own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was
born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not
consider a dual citizen to be a "natural born citizen" as required for the
presidency.
The burden, then, would shift to Obama and his administration officials to
document their constitutional authority for their decisions and their handling
of taxpayer money.
But Pidgeon originally told WND the plaintiffs in the TARP case are the
former Chrysler dealers, and their interests will be paramount.
The goal is "to get them restored," he said, and "put them back where they
were before their contracts were rejected."
"Our clients are not in this action as 'birthers,'" he said, citing a term used
for people who question Obama's constitutional eligibility. "Our clients are
here to seek redress for wrongs." (snip)
______________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123995
‘I don't know whether Obama's a U.S. citizen’
Growing list of lawmakers, talkers questioning eligibility of president
Posted: February 04, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
11:45 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
Tennessee state Senate speaker and gubernatorial candidate Ron Ramsey
has joined the growing ranks of officials and prominent commentators who
say they are unsure of whether President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen.
Ramsey was asked Feb. 2 about the issue by Maclin Davis, a former state
lawmaker and attorney for the state GOP, the Associated Press reported.
"I don't know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or
not," Ramsey responded. "I don't know what the whole deal is there."
However, Ramsey added that he doesn't believe citizens are concerned
about Obama's citizenship status.
"But I'm going to tell you something," he said. "When you walk out on the
street down here, people don't really care about this issue."
He said dwelling on the issue of whether Obama is eligible to hold office
distracts from the Republican message on jobs, education and fiscal
conservatism…..
Ramsey is just the latest addition to a long line of lawmakers and prominent
personalities who have questioned Obama's citizenship status or asked why
he hasn't released a birth certificate.
As WND reported, Democrats plan to raise the issue of Obama's eligibility to
occupy the Oval Office during this year's U.S. Senate races.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chief Robert Menendez has
distributed a memo to U.S. Senate campaign offices stating Democrats need
to demand that their opponents answer a series of questions, including, "Do
you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?"
WND has also reported efforts to raise the question of Obama's eligibility at
the state and national levels. Several state legislatures are working on
proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their
eligibility. Among the states where election qualification or eligibility
requirements are being considered or developed include Oklahoma, Arizona,
Georgia, Indiana, Virginia, New York and others. (snip)
______________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124973
Attorney facing penalties wants birth docs for defense
'Hardship on plaintiff greatly outweighs hardship on defendant'
Posted: February 13, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
12:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A California lawyer who has shepherded several of the high-profile legal
challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has filed a pleading
in federal court in Washington, saying she faces a $20,000 penalty and a
threat to her law license and needs the president's birth documents to
defend herself.
Attorney told Orly Taitz told WND she submitted the pleading today to Chief
Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Taitz said she applied for a preliminary injunction, because her
understanding of the rules of procedure for the district court shows a hearing
or decision must be returned within 20 days.
Among the cases she has handled have been one in California on behalf of
presidential candidate Alan Keyes which now is on appeal, another in
Georgia on behalf of Maj. Stefan Cook and yet another in Georgia on behalf
of Capt. Connie Rhodes….
Numerous lawsuits have been filed alleging Obama did not meet the U.S.
Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The
lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was
a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his
birth. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
Monday, February 22, 2010
Court Grants Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief in Kerchner
Appeal
On January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants' Opening Brief in the appeal of
Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that the New
Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling that
plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obama's alleged eligibility to be
President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents
a non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the
Founder’s and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which
is a child born in the country to citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is
not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he lacks unity of citizenship
and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United
States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the
time of birth. Obama’s father was only a temporary visitor to the United
States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a
citizen. Not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama is not eligible to
be President and Commander in Chief.
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was
born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth
certificate, a long-form birth certificate providing the name of the hospital in
which he was born and other corroborating data which was generated when
he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated
Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii
Department of Health in 2007 which some unknown person posted on the
internet in 2008, or other contemporaneous and objective documentation. At
the bottom of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB), it states: "This
copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court
proceeding." Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption
that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented
and in such case the interested party needs to present other competent
evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the
alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further
evidence. There exists a considerable amount of evidence which puts serious
doubt on Obama’s allegation that he was born in Hawaii. To date, Obama
has presented no additional evidence other than the internet image of his
Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and two unreliable newspaper
announcements regarding where he was born. Hence, the prima facie
validity of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) must fail and Obama should
be compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of
where he was born such as a contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961.
Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II,
Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept Obama as a “natural born Citizen.”
Circuit Court of Appeals rules provide that an appellant’s opening brief is not
to exceed 14,000 words. Because of the extraordinary nature and
complexity of the question of whether putative President Barack Obama is
an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President,
whether my clients (the plaintiffs) have standing to bring an action against
Obama and Congress in which they maintain that Obama is not a “natural
born Citizen” and that Congress failed to meet its constitutional duty to
protect my clients by assuring them that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,”
and whether plaintiffs’ action presents a nonjusticiable political question
which the courts cannot address, I was compelled to file a brief which
contained 20,477 words. So that the Court would accept the overlength
brief, I filed a motion with the Court for leave to file the overlength brief.
By order dated February 22, 2010, the Honorable Circuit Judge Michael A.
Chagares on behalf of the Motion's Panel of the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the overlength brief. This
is great news because the case will now continue forward as scheduled.
Obama’s and Congress’s opposition brief was initially due on February 22,
2010. The Department of Justice obtained a 14-day extension to file that
brief, making the new due date March 8, 2010. After they file their
opposition brief, I will then have 14 days within which to file a reply to that
brief. All briefs will be posted at this blog and it is my hope that the public
will read these briefs so as to stay fully informed on this issue that is
critically important not only to my clients but also to our Constitutional
Republic.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 22, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126137
Lawyer who challenged Obama: Ineligibility could prove costly
USJF chief: 'This is completely uncharted territory'
Posted: February 25, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
12:15 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
An attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility
revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has
released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn't eligible, he could be
charged under a number of felony statutes.
And that's just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition,
as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the
commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States
Justice Foundation.
Kreep has been involved in several of the cases that have raised challenges
to Obama's occupancy of the Oval Office, including two in California. One is
on appeal in the state court system and names California Secretary of State
Debra Bowen as defendant. The other, in the federal court system, is on
appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both make claims on behalf of individuals and political candidates in
California over Obama's presence on the 2008 election ballot.
WND several weeks ago reported when Kreep's legal research revealed two
precedents he believes would be applicable in the Obama case. In one,
state officials arbitrarily removed a candidate from an election ballot because
it was not proven the candidate was qualified for office. In another, the
North Dakota Supreme Court removed the sitting governor from office when
it was documented he was not eligible under the state's requirements.
Now Kreep has released an analysis of the federal laws he believes could be
applied should Obama ultimately be shown to be ineligible.
"If he is not eligible, he could be charged not only under with these crimes,
but potentially with crimes in a number of states where he falsely
represented that he was qualified to run, as well as people who helped him,"
Kreep told WND.
Further, there could be any number of challenges to virtually anything he did
as president: his nominations, his executive orders and his signing of
legislation.
"This is completely uncharted territory," Kreep told WND. "It could all be
challenged as invalid. There has to be a sitting president for [actions] to be
valid. If he's not qualified, if he's not the president, it isn't valid."
The research, done on Kreep's behalf by USJF staff attorney Chris Tucker,
cited the following statutes that could apply:
False Personation of Officer or Employee of the United States (18
U.S.C. § 912).
Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States (18 U.S.C.
371).
Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War (18 U.S.C. 2388(a))....
False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 U.S.C.
1542).......
False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911)........
Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621).......
The USJF document showed that all of the charges require a specific
intent. (snip)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126062
Lawmakers to candidates: Prove 'natural born' status
Arizona committee forwards proposal calling for submission of birth
certificates
Posted: February 24, 2010 10:19 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A legislative committee in Arizona has endorsed a bill that would require
presidential candidates to prove – by submitting a birth certificate – they are
qualified for the office under the Constitution's demand that they be a
"natural born citizen."
The committee voted 6-1 on a proposal from Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull
Valley, the Arizona Daily Star reported today. The measure now moves to
the full House.
WND report earlier when the bill was submitted to the legislature. About
three dozen state lawmakers had signed on as co-sponsors, giving it
considerable support even before it started the march through the legislative
process.
The bill would require the submission of documentation and also have state
officials independently verify the accuracy of documents used to affirm the
constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates.
At the time the bill was proposed, state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, told
the Arizona Capitol Times, "Certainly, there has been controversy over
President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc. It just
makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are
a natural born citizen."
The plan essentially would have the same effect as the federal law proposed
by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.....
.......The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012
presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a U.S. House
committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors………
Any state adopting and enforcing requirements similar to the federal plan
would have a significant impact. Although the submitted documents would
remain confidential, a determination to exclude a candidate from Arizona's
ballot would questions elsewhere….
The proposal, H2442, also would require that the Arizona secretary of state
independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure
could cause the candidate's name to be withheld from the ballot, officials
said.
WND also has reported lawmakers in Oklahoma, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia
and New York are considering similar legislation.
Leaders on a growing list also are asking question, including Tennessee
gubernatorial candidate Ron Ramsey, Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, U.S.
Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House
majority leader Tom DeLay, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., U.S. Rep. Trent
Franks, R-Ariz., feminist icon Camille Paglia, New Hampshire State Rep.
Laurence Rappaport, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., and prominent
commentators Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin,
Lou Dobbs, Peter Boyles and WND's Chuck Norris and Pat Boone. (snip)
______________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125985
Appeals court: We're listening to eligibility case
Judges grant permission for lengthy filing in case challenging Obama
Posted: February 23, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
11:08 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
An appeals court has indicated it is listening to arguments in a case that
challenges Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office with a ruling that
gives special permission for an extra-long document to be filed in the case.
WND has reported on the case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo in January
2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James
Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress,
the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney
and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides
that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral
College Electors."
The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a
British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case
contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the
requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual
citizens.
According to a posting on Apuzzo's website, the rules of procedure for the
3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals provide that an appellant's opening brief is
not to exceed 14,000 words.
However, Apuzzo wrote, "because of the extraordinary nature and
complexity of the question of whether putative President Barack Obama is
an Article II 'natural born citizen' and therefore eligible to be president,
whether my clients … have standing to bring an action against Obama and
Congress in which they maintain that Obama is not a 'natural born citizen'
and that Congress failed to meet its constitutional duty to protect my clients
by assuring them that Obama is a 'natural born Citizen…' I was compelled to
file a brief which contained 20,477 words."
"By order dated February 22, 2010, the Honorable Circuit Judge Michael A.
Chagares on behalf of the Motion's Panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of appeals
granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the overlength brief."
"This is great news because the case will now continue forward as
scheduled," he said. "Obama's and Congress's opposition brief was initially
due on Feb. 22, 2010. The Department of Justice obtained a 14-day
extension to file that brief, making the new due date March 8, 2010.
"After they file their opposition brief, I will then have 14 days within which to
file a reply to that brief," he said.. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
From http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/03/table-of-bills-pendingin-state.html
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Table of Bills Pending in State Legislatures Regarding Eligibility for
the Presidency - by Erica Thunderpaws [thunderpaws2@charter.net]
Some of America's legislators are finally recognizing that state legislation
must be passed to prevent political parties from placing their nominees for
President and Vice President on the ballot unless the leaders, and their
Secretary of State, have ascertained presidential eligibility with certified
documentation. Candidates must prove Article II, Section 1 eligibility
requirements.
Blogger jbjd has developed FOIA request forms and "Model Citizen
Complaints of Election Fraud to State Attorneys General" for the states of
Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. The
documents and advice jbjd provides helps citizens put pressure on state
political parties, state legislators, and their controlling legal authorities.
If you live in one of the six states mentioned, you should consider joining
citizens in your state by reviewing the materials on jbjd's blog. If you live in
a state other than those already mentioned, you can still call and write your
state legislators to demand a legislative bill that will prevent election fraud in
future presidential elections. Such legislation makes perfect sense, especially
in light of the fact that so many Americans now have reason to doubt
President Barack Obama's eligibility.
If your state has initiated a bill that does not appear on this list, please
contact me with the details so that the bill can be added to the table. We
need to keep the pressure on each state legislature to approve these
pending bills, and to push the remaining 44 state legislatures to pass similar
bills. From this point onwards, success depends on citizens like you.
[End of quoted material]
[See table with info regarding pending bills in AZ, FL, GA, IN, NH, SC at
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/03/table-of-bills-pending-instate.html ]
____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127358
Obama banks on 'no standing' decision
Eligibility case pending before appeals court
Posted: March 08, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
8:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
One of the banks of attorneys assigned to quash demands for documentation
that President Obama is constitutionally eligible to occupy the Oval Office is
counting on a ruling that American citizens have no "standing" to demand
that information.
The attorneys argued in a brief submitted to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals that any injury to someone whose president is not eligible is the
same injury for all people, so the individual has no legal standing to
complain.
WND has reported on the case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo in January
2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James
Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress,
the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney
and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides
that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral
College Electors."
The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a
British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case
contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the
requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual
citizens.
According to a statement on Apuzzo's weblog, the government's statement
will be answered by the scheduled deadline of March 22.
In a posted statement, Kerchner said, "What a lame and empty defense."
(snip)
__________________________________________________________
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/virginia-attorney-general-birther-challenge/
Audio: Virginia AG strategizes birther legal challenge
By Daniel Tencer
Monday, March 15th, 2010 -- 2:50 pm
Political observers are wondering whether Virginia Attorney General Ken
Cuccinelli is a "birther" following the release of an audio tape in which
Cuccinelli says that the claims that President Barack Obama was born
outside the US are "within the realm of possibility."
In a question-and-answer session, audio of which was obtained by the
Virginia blog Not Larry Sabato, Cuccinelli outlines a strategy for how
Obama's citizenship can be challenged in the courts.
"What can we do about Obama and the birth certificate thing?" an
unidentified questioner asks.
"It'll get tested in my view when he signs a law and someone is convicted of
violating it, and one of their defenses will be it's not a law if someone
qualified to be president isn't signing it," Cuccinelli is heard saying.
"Is that something you can do as attorney general, can you ... do that or
something?" the questioner asks.
"Well, only if there's a conflict where we're suing the federal government for
a law they've passed," Cuccinelli replies. "So it's possible."
Cuccinelli then mentions that, in order to challenge the president's birth
certificate, someone will have to step up with "proof" the president was not
born in Hawaii in 1961, as his birth certificate states.
"Someone's going to have to come forward with nailed-down testimony that
he was born in Place B, wherever that is. The speculation is Kenya,"
Cuccinelli said. "And that doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility."
(snip)
[The audio is available in the last part of this article at
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/virginia-attorney-general-birther-challenge/ .]
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128137
Virginia questions Obama's eligibility 'It's not law if qualified
president isn't signing it'
Posted: March 16, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
1:39 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A newly unearthed recording reveals a state attorney general explaining how
the president's eligibility could be tested in the courts by a lawyer defending
a client against an accusation brought under legislation signed by Obama.
The recording of Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli puts him on
a growing list of elected leaders, members of Congress and state officials
who have addressed concerns over Obama's eligibility to occupy the White
House.
Cuccinelli released a statement this week that the recording, apparently
made either while he was campaigning for the office or shortly after he was
elected, was a "hypothetical" answer to a "hypothetical" question.
Spokesman Brian Gottstein in Cuccinelli's office today explained to WND
Cuccinelli is battling the Obama White House on many fronts: health care,
the EPA's determination on carbon dioxide and others.
"If it does get taken to court, we'll deal with it then. That's right now not
what he's doing." (snip)
[Note: Quotes from other officials regarding questions of eligibility
are included in this article.]
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmY0QbztBYUfvaCiG
kFPJ-enKz_wD9EG7MC00
“Hawaii considering law to ignore Obama 'birthers'”
By MARK NIESSE (AP) – March 16, 2010
HONOLULU — Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated
requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.
As the state continues to receive e-mails seeking Obama's birth certificate,
the state House Judiciary Committee heard a bill Tuesday permitting
government officials to ignore people who won't give up.
"Sometimes we may be dealing with a cohort of people who believe lack of
evidence is evidence of a conspiracy," said Lorrin Kim, chief of the Hawaii
Department of Health's Office of Planning, Policy and Program Development.
So-called "birthers" claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they
argue, he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't
meet a constitutional requirement for being president.
Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and
in October 2008 saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama is a
natural-born American citizen.
But the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of
Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii, Kim said
Tuesday.
A few of these requesters continue to pepper the Health Department with
the same letters seeking the same information, even after they're told state
law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have
a tangible interest. Responding wastes time and money, Kim said.
Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the
Health Department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
The issue coincides with Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote
open government and freedom of information. (snip)
_____________________________________________________
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/03/16/1052709/appeals-courtupholds-20000-in.html
Tuesday, Mar. 16, 2010
Appeals court upholds $20,000 in sanctions against birther
movement attorney Orly Taitz
Birther movement attorney has insisted she won’t pay sanctions levied by
Judge Land
By ALAN RIQUELMY - ariquelmy@ledger-enquirer.com
California attorney and “birther” proponent Orly Taitz must pay $20,000 in
sanctions, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday.
In the two-page decision, the appeals court states that after considering
Taitz’ arguments, “we find them unpersuasive and therefore affirm the
district court’s sanctions judgment.”
Taitz’ appeal stems from a suit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes, who
argued in September that Barack Obama’s presidency wasn’t legitimate and
that she shouldn’t be deployed. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land
dismissed that suit Sept. 16, telling Taitz that she could face sanctions if she
ever again filed a “frivolous” suit in his court. Taitz then filed a motion for
emergency stay, and Land gave her two weeks to explain why he shouldn’t
sanction her $10,000. (snip)
Read more: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/03/16/1052709/appealscourt-upholds-20000-in.html#ixzz0iTJmNngs
_____________________________________________________________
Latest filing by Attorney Mario Apuzzo 3/23/2010
Kerchner v Obama
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellants-Reply-Brief
______________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=131589
Court told 'citizen' Obama actually may be alien
'Under British Nationality Act … he was a British subject'
Posted: March 25, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
12:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Forget the dispute over the "natural born citizen" requirement of the U.S.
Constitution for presidents, Barack Obama may not even be a "citizen,"
according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to
occupy the Oval Office.
"Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British
subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a
British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born," says a new filing in the
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.
"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that
he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth
Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in
Hawaii."
The submission comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the
case. His brief argues against the earlier document from Obama's attorneys
demanding that the case be dismissed.
WND reported earlier when the lawyer argued that the most common reason
judges have used to dismiss cases against Obama – a lack of "standing" – is
just wrong.
Obama’s arguments in this case, in fact, rely almost exclusively on that issue
to suggest the case by Apuzzo should be dismissed.
The case was brought by Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F.
Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H.
Nelson Jr.
Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the
Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides
that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral
College Electors."
The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British
subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the
framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a
president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens.
In a statement on his blog, Apuzzo said the next step in his case is a
decision from the court.
"We will now wait and see if the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals grants my
request for oral argument and if so when the oral argument will be," he said.
His latest filing also has been posted online. [See
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellants-Reply-Brief .]
“…….the citizenship status of Obama is critical to the question of whether
plaintiffs having standing, for it is that very statute which is the basis of their
injury in fact."
He noted the case was filed before Obama became president. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=132025
Motions says new law invalid because of Obama's missing
documentation
Posted: March 25, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
11:45 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
What President Obama has described as a monumental victory – the
passage of health-care reform legislation – could be linked in court to the
ongoing controversy over his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office.
Attorney Orly Taitz – now a candidate for secretary of state in California –
today provided to WND a court filing in which she asks that her eligibility
challenge be joined with a case that contests the constitutionality of the
Democrats' massive health-care plan.
Taitz argues, "H.R. 3590 was signed into law by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama,
who … never proved his legitimacy to the presidency. Therefore the act is
invalid, as it was not signed by one legally entitled to sign it."
Her e-mail documentation indicated she filed with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation under federal court rules.
She's asking to link her case and the case brought by a long list of state
attorneys general against the health-care law, Florida et al vs. United States
Department of Health and Human Services.
Taitz is suing Obama "in regards to damages suffered by her" as part of an
amended complaint filed in federal court in Washington.
She submitted a series of affidavits to support her claim, including one from
former federal examiner and law enforcement officer Sandra Ramsey Lines,
who contends Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" as posted on the Internet
by his campaign cannot be used as documentation of his birth.
A separate affidavit from an Ohio private investigator said the Social
Security number Obama apparently is using "appears to also be associated
with someone born in the year 1890."
A second investigator, this one from New York, said his work revealed the
Social Security number has been issued in Connecticut, even though Obama
apparently has no ties to the state.
Taitz cited the evidence to argue there are many unresolved questions about
Obama's history that cast doubt on his eligibility to be president under the
Constitution's requirement that the office be held by a "natural born citizen."
Her motion describes the health-care plan as an interference with existing
contracts, a breach of contract and an unenforceable contract.
"It might be a stroke of providence that this unconstitutional bill was signed
into law by an ineligible president, and that these responsive pleadings were
submitted for consideration only a few days before the day of the ancient
holiday of Passover, which celebrates freedom from bondage and
usurpation," her pleading states. "It is time for the lawful and law abiding
free sovereign citizens of this nation to have standing and representation
alongside free sovereign states to break from usurpation and bondage," she
wrote. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=133937
California 'had duty' to examine Obama eligibility
Keyes' brief cites Supreme Court determination candidates can be
removed from ballot
Posted: March 29, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
9:58 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A brief submitted to an appeals court in California explains that elections
officials in California had a duty to examine Barack Obama's eligibility to the
office of president during the 2008 election.
WND previously has reported on the case brought by Gary Kreep of the
United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes and
others. He has argued that a judge's earlier dismissal of the case ignored
significant precedents, that state officials previously removed from the ballot
a nominee for president simply because he did not meet constitutional
eligibility requirements and in another situation, a court actually removed a
government's chief elected executive from office for not being eligible.
A multitude of cases have been brought over the issue of Obama's eligibility.
Some are by critics who have doubts about whether he was born in Hawaii in
1961 as he has written, and others are from those who question whether the
framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's
father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being
eligible for the presidency.
The disputes revolve around the Constitution's demand that the president be
a "natural born citizen."
In his reply brief to Obama's arguments the case should be dismissed, Kreep
argues that even though Obama's attorneys argue that "jurisdiction over
presidential qualifications lies with the United States Congress," that actually
is not a full explanation.
He cites the U.S. Constitution that "each state" shall appoint a number of
electors, and "this case concerns itself primarily with California state election
law and the compliance or non-compliance by the secretary of state in
fulfilling her ministerial duties as chief elections officer of California."
"This is not a political question, but is, rather, a question well within the
jurisdiction of this court to determine, as it is a duty that may be
compelled by this court's equitable power," he wrote.
"A remedy is proper at state level where a duty is imposed on a state officer.
The underlying writ does not require anything of any federal official, but
does require Respondent [Debra] BOWEN, the California Secretary of State,
to fulfill a specific duty to verify that a candidate meets the eligibility
requirements for the office that the candidate is seeking. This is a matter of
first impression, and RESPONDENT'S correctly assert that there is not yet
any statutory or judicial rule which requires this duty of the Secretary of
State. However, it is a duty that is reasonably inferred from the already
existing duties of said office," he argues.
Kreep's earlier appeal documentation had explained the precedents that he
believes should be applied. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20100404_Support_dwindles_for_bill_lim
iting_access_to_records.html
Support dwindles for bill limiting access to records
By Richard Borreca
01:30 a.m. HST, Apr 04, 2010
A move to limit access to public information for people who repeatedly ask
for the same documents is moving to a joint House-Senate conference, but
support appears to be waning.
The bill, Senate Bill 2937, was the idea of the state Health Department,
which has to field daily questions about the birth certificate of President
Barack Obama.
Conservative fringe groups on the mainland have bombarded the Health
Department with requests for Obama's birth certificate, and when they are
told that the document is private and not a public document, many attempt
to sue, causing the state to repeatedly defend its position.
The Media Council of Hawaii protested the proposed bill, saying that it could
be used to needlessly restrict public information.
In an attempt to compromise, Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, Judiciary Committee
chairman, changed the bill to say that if a requester makes duplicative
requests for what is substantially the same document and the agency
already has answered, the state Office of Information Practices would be
required to step in to examine the issue.
OIP could then decide that the agency need not make available the
document or provide more than one response or set of government records
to the requesting person.
Sen. Will Espero, who introduced the bill at the request of the Health
Department, said the Senate would not agree to the House amendments,
meaning the bill will go to conference.
"I don't want to see a bill that people feel is infringing on their rights," said
Espero (D, Ewa-Honouliuli-Ewa Beach).
Chris Conybeare, Media Council president, called the new proposal "really
bad."
"Any new exception to the public information law is really bad," Conybeare
said……
A move to limit access to public information for people who repeatedly ask
for the same documents is moving to a joint House-Senate conference, but
support appears to be waning.
The bill, Senate Bill 2937, was the idea of the state Health Department,
which has to field daily questions about the birth certificate of President
Barack Obama……….
The Media Council of Hawaii protested the proposed bill, saying that it could
be used to needlessly restrict public information.
In an attempt to compromise, Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, Judiciary Committee
chairman, changed the bill to say that if a requester makes duplicative
requests for what is substantially the same document and the agency
already has answered, the state Office of Information Practices would be
required to step in to examine the issue.
OIP could then decide that the agency need not make available the
document or provide more than one response or set of government records
to the requesting person. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137013
Officer questioning eligibility faces new threats from Army
'You could be sentenced to dismissal, confinement'
Posted: April 05, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
9:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
The Army is threatening to dismiss and jail an active-duty lieutenant colonel
who says he won't obey military orders until he knows that President Obama
is in the Oval Office as a constitutionally eligible president, according to his
supporters.
A statement given to WND today by Margaret Hemenway, who is acting as a
spokeswoman for the case involving the American Patriot Foundation and
Lakin is "undaunted" and has not changed his position.
Lakin announced his position with a video stating he would not follow orders
because he was not sure of their legality under Obama, who has concealed
personal information that could confirm he meets the constitutional
requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."
WND reported earlier when the Army "unofficially" recommended a medical
evaluation, which Lakin refused.
Now, the Army has issued a "counseling form" warning Lakin his
deployment orders are valid. The document has been posted on the
Safeguard Our Constitution website, which is assembling support for the
officer.
"On 30 March 2010, this command became aware of your intentions to
refuse to follow deployment orders. Your stated reason for refusal was your
belief that the election of the President of the United States is invalid
because you believe he is not 'native born' [sic]. This counseling is to inform
you that your deployment orders are presumed to be valid and lawful orders
issued by competent military authority," said the document from the
"counselor," Lt. Col. William D. Judd.
The letter reminded Lakin of his April 12 due date at Fort Campbell, Ky.
"Failure to follow your reassignment and/or deployment orders may result in
adverse action including court-martial," the officer was warned……
The statement released by Hemenway noted Lakin is being supported by
"hundreds" of people who have donated to his legal defense fund. He
announced his refusal to obey orders after unsuccessfully following channels
to get the same verification from the president that the officer has been
required to provide throughout his 18-year military career.
The website also notes that the "counseling" document wasn't completely
accurate. It's not "native-born" that is in question for Obama; it is the
constitutionally mandated "natural born citizen."
Although the term is not defined in the Constitution, legal scholars believe it
is best understood to mean a U.S. child of U.S. citizen parents….(snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=136565
Joseph Farah
Between the Lines
WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary
Upping the ante on eligibility
Posted: April 05, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 World Net Daily
Now that Barack Obama has twice personally addressed the national
controversy over his eligibility for the office he has assumed, legitimately or
illegitimately, I think it's time to raise the stakes and increase the pressure
for answers.
As I've said for a long time, I do not believe any judge in America, no matter
the evidence or lack thereof, is going to rule Obama ineligible for office. We
need to understand that justice in America is, like it or not, a matter of
politics and power. Unless and until the movement to demand the truth
about Obama's origins and natural-born citizenship status becomes so
popular it can no longer be ignored or ridiculed, no judge will dare allow an
impartial hearing on the evidence.
That is indeed unfortunate for those in the military who are being told even
they do not have standing to adjudicate whether their commander in chief is
fit for office. Nevertheless, it is a political reality.
That means we have much work to do to persuade Americans the issue is
real and important.
That's why, for my part, I have made it something of a personal
crusade………..
It's time we start building to a big finish in 2012.
………It's time to ensure Obama does not get a free ride from state election
officials as he did in 2008……
That's why I am launching a brand new petition specifically directed to state
officials who will be responsible for conducting elections in 2012. All we are
asking them to do, of course, is to carry out the law, their sworn
constitutional duties.
By doing this, we will be ensuring that our deep concerns about Obama's
eligibility, and the eligibility of anyone else who runs for president in the
future, is an established fact before they are permitted on the ballot…...
Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count,
decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her
eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't
take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective. (snip)
______________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=136589
New strategy unveiled to force Obama on eligibility
Petition calls on state election officials to verify qualifications in
2012
Posted: April 05, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – There's a new strategy unfolding today in the effort to
establish whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as
president, Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND says.
In his column today in WND, Farah announces a new petition drive directed
not at federal officials, whom, he says, have abrogated their own
responsibilities, but toward election officials, governors and legislatures in all
50 states who will have to oversee the vote in 2012.
"I think it's more than clear at this point that no one at the federal level
plans to do anything to enforce the U.S. Constitution," Farah said. "But I
have confidence that at least some state officials will have the guts to do so
when Obama faces re-election – if he dares."
The new petition launches after one directed at all controlling legal
authorities at the federal level attracted some 500,000 names.
Farah points out that it won't take all 50 states enforcing the law to ensure
Obama is disqualified.
"Obama knows he can't win without competing in all 50 states," he said.
"In fact, he will have his hands full even if he can get on the ballot
everywhere………"
Farah says all those campaigns will continue.
"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and
the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his
willingness to do in his first year in office," he says in his column. "However,
a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a
sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election
has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for
the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to
be effective." (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135781
Eligibility challenger: Don't touch my brain!
Flight surgeon questioning Obama rejects Army's suggestion of
'help'
Posted: April 04, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
6:28 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A U.S. Army flight surgeon who posted a video indicating his complete
rejection of all orders from the military unless Barack Obama documents his
eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is now refusing an "unofficial" suggestion
from the Army for a medical evaluation.
WND reported this week the Army was hinting that Lt. Col Terry Lakin
should undergo a brain scan and medical review.
A spokeswoman involved with the developing case said the recommendation
was delivered to Lakin by an unnamed officer who implied those higher up
the chain of command thought it was a good idea.
The suggestion was described to WND by spokeswoman Margaret Calhoun
Hemenway, a veteran Washington appointee and now volunteer
spokeswoman, as being presented in a "solicitous" manner.
Officially, the U.S. Army says it has no plans for formal action at this point
against the officer. But Calhoun Hemenway told WND that Lakin's "no"
meant "no."
"He is not taking any suggested medical evaluation or brain scan. He is
refusing to obey all orders including deployment orders," she confirmed.
"It is interesting this suggestion of a medical exam should arise now given
he was only a couple of weeks from deployment and obviously judged to be
fit for deployment with his bags packed," she said.
But as WND reported, the controversy raises the prospect that the
government may be unwilling to pursue a prosecution because of the
possible ramifications – which could include a defense lawyer's demand for a
court-ordered discovery process that would target Obama's historical
documentation
Even participants in a forum on the left-leaning Huffington Post website
seemed to agree in part.
"Freakin' Brilliant!" said one. "They can't court-martial him [without] the
defense getting the judge to order the the (sic) birth-certificate be produced!
Either Obama will have to produce or they can't prosecute. Genius." ……..
In his video message now posted on YouTube, Lakin, an 18-year veteran,
personally pleads with the president to stop withholding the key document
which would put to rest many of the doubts that continue to linger more
than a year into Obama's term.
"President Obama, I ask you to respect and uphold the Constitution. Be
transparent and show your honesty and integrity. Release your original,
signed birth certificate, if you have one, thus proving your birth on American
soil, and thus assure the American people that you are lawfully eligible to
hold the office of the presidency and serve as commander in chief of the
Armed Forces." (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137849
Officer to Obama: Burden of proof must rest with you
Flight surgeon refusing orders releases text of challenge to
president
Posted: April 08, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
9:55 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
An Army flight surgeon who is refusing further orders unless President
Obama documents his eligibility to be commander in chief today released a
copy of the letter he dispatched to the president, in which he states "the
burden of proof must rest with you."
WND has reported on the case created by Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, including
when he reported Army threats to punish him for his perspective.
Lakin had announced his position with a video stating he would not follow
orders because he was not sure of their legality under Obama, who has
concealed personal information that could confirm he meets the
constitutional requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."
The letter, posted online as well as at the Safeguard Our Constitution
website, which is assembling support for the officer, describes how Lakin
tried through his chain of command and his congressional office to get
answers to questions about Obama's eligibility.
"You serve as my commander-in-chief. Given the fact that the
certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that
the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient
substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your
personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health
from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital
from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you," he
wrote.
"Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally
eligible to serve as commander-in-chief and thereby may lawfully direct
service members into harm's way," he continued. "I will be proud to deploy
to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I
should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our
Constitution is respected and obeyed."
He had noted that every soldier "learns what constitutes a lawful order and
is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders." And he noted that
his orders to deploy include a demand for copies of his birth certificate.
But he said he was troubled by the president's decision to conceal "from
public view" records that could easily end questions about Obama's place of
birth and "natural born" status.
Lakin concluded his letter as follows: "Unless it is established (by this
sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you
are constitutionally eligible to serve as president and my commander-inchief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders.
Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that
validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions
surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY
military orders."
The Army earlier informally recommended a mental evaluation and then
threatened Lakin with punishment.
"On 30 March 2010, this command became aware of your intentions to
refuse to follow deployment orders. Your stated reason for refusal was your
belief that the election of the President of the United States is invalid
because you believe he is not 'native born' [sic]. This counseling is to inform
you that your deployment orders are presumed to be valid and lawful orders
issued by competent military authority," said the document from the
"counselor," Lt. Col. William D. Judd.
The letter reminded Lakin of his April 12 due date at Fort Campbell, Ky.
"Failure to follow your reassignment and/or deployment orders may result in
adverse action including court-martial," the officer was warned. (snip)
_________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138249
No birth certificate? No Obamacare!
Attorney files motion to link eligibility, health-care lawsuits
Posted: April 08, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
11:30 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
….Attorney Orly Taitz – now a candidate for secretary of state in California –
is seeking to link her case and the case against the health-care law, Florida
et al vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
In legal documents filed April 6 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida, Taitz requests an oral argument on the motion to take place April
14 at 9 a.m.
As WND recently reported, Taitz argues, "H.R. 3590 was signed into law by
Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, who … never proved his legitimacy to the
presidency. Therefore the act is invalid, as it was not signed by one legally
entitled to sign it."
Plaintiffs for the case include attorneys general representing the following
states: Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama,
Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho and South Carolina.
Virginia has filed an independent suit in a separate action. The complaint
lists Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis as
defendants.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to:
A. Declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be in violation of
Article I of and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States;
B. Declare defendants to have violated the plaintiffs' rights as sovereigns
and protectors of the freedom, health, and welfare of their citizens and
residents, as aforesaid;
C. Enjoin defendants and any other agency or employee acting on behalf of
the United States from enforcing the act against the plaintiffs, their citizens
and residents, and any of their agencies or officials or employees, and to
take such actions as are necessary and proper to remedy their violations
deriving from any such actual or attempted enforcement
"Movant unlike the Attorneys General is a medical provider directly affected
by the Act suing Quo Warranto," Taitz' motion states. "Accordingly, there
can be no genuine dispute that Dr. Taitz claims a valid interest in the subject
matter of the instant action – i.e. whether the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act violates the Commerce Clause."
It continues, "It is likewise irrefutable that Dr. Taitz is presently 'so situated'
that a disposition of the instant declaratory judgment action will
significantly, if not completely, impair her legal interests."
Taitz' complaint notes that she is a California-licensed doctor of dental
surgery and claims the health-care law "imposes an unreasonable
infringement upon her gainful employment in dental surgery as
overburdening interstate commerce in clear violation of the Commerce
Clause."
"However," it states, "unlike the attorneys general, Dr. Taitz raises a more
fundamental issue, the underlying legitimacy of Barack Obama to sign the
act." (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=140029
Officer to Army: Bring it on!
Refusing to deploy without eligibility answers, misses due date at
Fort Campbell
Posted: April 13, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
1:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A decorated Army surgeon who is refusing to follow orders because of the
president's decision to conceal documents that could show his eligibility to
be commander in chief is telling the military to bring it on – by missing a
deployment due date yesterday at Fort Campbell, Ky.
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is facing imminent court-martial charges in the wake of
the Army's demand he report for a Middle East deployment, and his decision
to refuse orders until there are answers to questions about President
Obama's eligibility.
"He has been informed through official challenges that he will be charged
soon with missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer," according
to a statement released last night to WND.
The information was from Margaret Calhoun Hemenway, who is acting as a
spokeswoman in the case involving Lakin. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
Army to court martial 'birther' officer
Posted: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:10 PM by Mark Murray
From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski and Mark Murray
U.S. military officials tell NBC News that the U.S. Army will court martial a
lieutenant colonel who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan because he
considers orders from President Obama to be "illegal."
Army doctor Lt. Col. Terry Lakin believes Obama does not meet the
constitutional requirements to be president and commander-in-chief,
because he believes (incorrectly) that Obama wasn't born in the United
States.
Lakin refused this week to report to Fort Campbell, KY for deployment to
Afghanistan, but instead showed up at the Pentagon, where he was
confronted by his brigade Commander Col. Gordon Roberts, a Vietnam Medal
of Honor recipient.
Lakin was informed by Roberts that he would face court martial, and his
Pentagon building pass and government laptop computer were seized.
___________________________________________________________
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36478557/ns/us_news-life/
The following report from NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim
Miklaszewski includes information from The Associated Press.
Army officer won’t accept Obama as chief
Sources: Doctor who refused to deploy could face court-martial
NBC News and news services
updated 6:30 p.m. ET, Tues., April 13, 2010
WASHINGTON - The Army may be forced to court-martial a lieutenant
colonel who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he considers orders
from President Barack Obama to be illegal, military officials told NBC News
on Tuesday.
Army doctor Lt. Col. Terry Lakin believes Obama does not meet the
constitutional requirements to be president and commander-in-chief because
Lakin believes the president was not born in the United States. A video with
statements from Lakin on the subject was released by the right-wing
American Patriot Foundation.
Lakin refused to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., for deployment to Afghanistan,
but instead went to the Pentagon. There on Monday he was confronted by
his brigade commander, Col. Gordon Roberts, and informed he could face
court martial, and his Pentagon building pass and government laptop
computer were seized…………….
…..The Constitution states that a person must be a "natural-born citizen " to
be eligible for the presidency. Birthers have contended that Obama's birth
certificate is a fake, and many of them say he was actually born in Kenya,
his father's homeland. They challenged his citizenship in court, and the issue
became a staple of radio talk shows and conservative blogs…..(snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=235
At top of webpage, Drudge Report is linking to NBC News story on
LTC Lakin
Posted by GVA on Apr 14, 2010 10:49
……The NBC News article
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36478557/ns/us_news-military/ ) has many
errors. First of all, contrary to the spelling in the article, the requirement is
spelled "natural born citizen" in the Constitution WITHOUT A HYPHEN.
The most important error, however, is the underlying presumption in the
article that native birth satisfies the natural-born citizenship requirement.
This presumption is simply untrue. Natural-born citizenship is citizenship
naturally acquired by the natural flow of citizenship from the parents to the
child. Both parents must be citizens. Obama's father was a British subject,
who naturally subjected Obama to foreign jurisdiction, as admitted. Obama
was then a foreign citizen from birth, as admitted
(http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html ). Obama is at
best a naturalized U.S. citizen, but he was never a "natural born citizen" as
required for the office of president. When the Framers wrote "natural born
citizen", they meant ONLY a U.S. citizen from birth, and naturally so.
___________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=140897
Officer challenging Obama 'reassigned'
No charges yet for surgeon demanding eligibility proof
Posted: April 14, 2010 8:35 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
By Bob Unruh
The U.S. Army says a surgeon who has publicly refused to follow any further
orders until he sees documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to be
president is being "reassigned" at Walter Reed Army Hospital after he
refused to deploy to Afghanistan as scheduled.
While there have been reports Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is facing an imminent
court-martial, Army spokesman Chuck Dasey told WND today that Lakin is
only "under investigation" at this point.
"Lakin reported to the commander, Medical Center Brigade, Walter Reed
Army Medical Center, on Monday, 12 April, after failing to report for duty at
Fort Campbell, Ky.," a statement sent by Dasey to WND today said.
"Lakin will be assigned to duty at Walter Reed pending investigation."
A spokeswoman for the case, Margaret Calhoun Hemenway, told WND that
whatever the "assignment" amounts to, Lakin's access privileges were
revoked, his computer was confiscated and he "is not permitted to support
his Hippocratic oath … and take care of the troops as a doctor and a
surgeon."
On the day he was supposed to have reported for deployment, Lakin was
read his rights by Col. Gordon Roberts, his brigade commander, who
discussed the situation with him and told him he had the "right to remain
silent" because he was about to be charged with "serious crimes."
Hemenway said the message was that "he will shortly be court-martialed for
crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer)
that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor." (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
Information posted 4/16/2010
Jorge L. Bara Affidavit Regarding Address Used in the Birth
Announcements
A 2008 affidavit from a Private Investigator by the name of Jorge L. Baro
can be found at http://www.wnd.com/files/baro.pdf . Mr. Baro filed the
affidavit while a PI with the Elite Legal Services, LLC, in Royal Palm Beach,
Fla. That affidavit is also posted here in the Files Section of
http://eligibilityquestions.com . “The affidavit is at the center of a federal
lawsuit (that was filed) prior to the November election in Hattiesburg, Miss.,
before U.S. District Judge Keith Starret” according to an article by Jerome
Corsi posted at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=83851 . The
affidavit goes into detail concerning the fact that Orland S. and Thelma S.
(Young) Lefforge lived at the address that is mentioned in the birth
announcements. It doesn't mention that Professor Lefforge was BHO Sr.'s
professor. That has been alleged but not as yet documented. It has also
been alleged that Professor Lefforge may have had a role in getting the
COLB issued by the Dept. of Health. If that documentation is found, it will
be posted here. However, it is evident that the Lefforges’ address was used
since it appeared in the birth announcements. There is an article on Mr.
Baro’s casting doubt on the residence of the Obama’s that appeared on the
birth announcements at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=83851
_____________________________________________________________
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Chrysler Appeal Assigned In Southern District Of New York.
Posted in Uncategorized on April 16, 2010 by naturalborncitizen
The Chrysler appeal by the rejected dealers has been assigned to the
Honorable Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
Steve Pidgeon has been admitted pro hac vice in the Southern District. My
application will be filed next week. Because our original pro hac vice
applications arrived before the case was issued a docket number, they were
returned by the Clerk’s office. But we have yet to receive the package which
included my certificate of good standing issued by the NJ Board of Bar
Examiners. Therefore, another one must be ordered. Regardless, Steve has
now been admitted, our appellate brief has been filed and the record is
complete.
Both Steve and I will appear when oral argument is scheduled.
You may read the full appellate brief here. We are waiting on the response
by Old Chrysler.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Pidgeon & Donofrio GP
_____________________________________________________________
Law Suit Filed by Andy Martin, J.D.
Dated: May 4, 2010
Honolulu, Hawai'i
_
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
Temporary Hawai'i
tel. (917) 664-9329
Plaintiff pro se
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
CIVIL NUMBER: 10-1-969-05 RAT
(Declaratory Judgment)
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
EXHIBITS 1-5: SUMMONS
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARK J. BENNETT, in his
official capacity as
Attorney General
of the State of Hawai'i,
LINDA LINGLE, in her
official capacity as Governor
of the State of Hawai'i,
Defendants.
_________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN, J.D., ("Plaintiff"), pro se, alleges in this Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment against the Defendants as follows:
COUNT ONE
I.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN is the author of the definitive book on President
Barack Obama ("Obama"), "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask." Plaintiff is
also the producer/director of the first film concerning Obama's Hawai'i years,
"Obama: The Hawai'i Years." He has also been writing columns and
commentary about the president for nearly six (6) years and he is currently
planning a second book on President Obama. Plaintiff holds a Juris Doctor
degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.
2. Defendants MARK J. BENNETT ("Bennett") and LINDA LINGLE ("Lingle")
are the Hawai'i Attorney General and Governor respectively. Governor Lingle
supervises and controls the actions of the executive department and in
particular supervises Dr. Chiyome Fukino who is the Director of the Hawai'i
Department of Health.
3. This Complaint for Declaratory Relief and these proceedings are instituted
pursuant to § 632-1, Hawai'i Revised Statutes.
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 603-36, Hawaii Revised
Statutes.
5. The defendants are sued in their official capacities for the reasons set
forth in the exhibits accompanying and attached to this Complaint.
II.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff submitted a Uniform Information Practices Act ("UIPA") request to
the defendants on or about November 2, 2008. A copy of said request is
attached as Exhibit 1.
2. Plaintiff further submitted a supplemental request to
Lingle on April 3, 2009, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2.
3. Defendants responded nearly seven (7) months later with a virtually
blanket refusal to disclose any of their own internal communications. The
UIPA materials for which defendants charged Plaintiff $600 were virtually
worthless and made a mockery of the liberal UIPA principles applicable under
both the UIPA statute and the decisions of the Hawai'i courts interpreting the
UIPA. A copy of defendants' response is attached as Exhibit 3.
4. Plaintiff wrote to the defendants on April 14, 2010; defendants have not
responded. A copy of Plaintiff's request is attached as Exhibit 4. In a final
effort to avoid a lawsuit Plaintiff wrote to the defendants on April 30, 2010,
attached as Exhibit 5; again defendants have not responded.
5. There is great public confusion and national concern involving the issue of
Obama's birth in this state. Ironically, the secrecy and manipulation of the
defendants, and their refusal to make Hawai'i state records available to
plaintiff, have fueled intense speculation that Obama was not born in
Hawai'i and may have been born in Kenya. Plaintiff himself has always
stated Obama was born in Hawai'i, which is why he is suing to obtain
Obama's Hawai'i birth and other public records here; nevertheless, tens of
millions of Americans believe Obama was born in Kenya due to the secrecy
and manipulation of Hawai'i state records by the defendants.
6. Unless and until Hawai'i executive branch officials and judges stop
stonewalling and concealing historical Hawaiian archives concerning Obama,
public speculation will continue to grow about the nature and extent of
Obama's origins in this state. The defendants' secrecy and manipulation of
public records have boomeranged: instead of quieting public concerns since
2008 and laying to rest questions about Obama's "roots," approximately 150
million Americans now harbor doubts in 2010 about the whereabouts and
circumstances of Obama's birth.
7. American media have coined the term "Birthers" to refer to the
approximately 150 million Americans who harbor doubts about the
circumstances of Obama's birth. Plaintiff refers to these tens of millions of
concerned Americans collectively as "Birther Nation."
III.
LEGAL CLAIM
1. In the past, Hawai'i courts have interpreted the UIPA liberally.
2. The defendants' current claim that any internal communications of Hawai'i
executive branch officials involving Obama's records are exempt from UIPA
disclosure would gut the UIPA and make the statute worthless.
3. The refusal of the defendants to comply with the UIPA is part of an
egregious (and misguided) partisan political manipulation of the Obama
archives by the defendants. Defendants, using Fukino as their mouthpiece,
have disseminated repeated statements and remarks about the contents of
Obama's state files; when challenged to produce the original documents to
which they were referring the defendants responded with claims of secrecy.
4. The defendants have waived any secrecy of state records concerning
Obama by Fukino's repeated and continuing public discussions of the Obama
files and by their constant and continuing efforts to obtain local and national
publicity for their claims.
IV.
DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
Plaintiff seeks to have the defendants fully comply with the UIPA in good
faith, and to provide all of their internal communications which they have
refused to provide to Plaintiff for 1-1/2 years.
COUNT TWO
I.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph One of Count One (¶ I).
II.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph Two of Count One (¶ II).
III.
LEGAL CLAIM
1. Barack Obama is President of the United States. He is not by any stretch
of the imagination a private citizen to whom normal privacy concerns are
applicable. State and federal privacy statutes applicable to ordinary private
citizens were never intended to impose a veil of secrecy over historical
archives and records concerning the President of the United States.
2. Hawai'i state files, records and other local sources of information
constitute historical archives both of this state and the United States to
which privacy statutes and privacy concerns are either completely
inapplicable or almost fully attenuated. Obama himself has stated he has
released his "birth certificate;" therefore he has affirmatively waived any
secrecy or privacy concerning the original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate.
3. Defendants cannot be allowed to play games and seek to advance a
partisan political agenda concerning Obama by making public claims about
state documents and records which they then refuse to make available for
public inspection and copying.
IV.
DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
1. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring that Obama's
original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate is a state and national historical
record and archive which should be made available to the American people
and to writers, journalists, scholars and researchers. This finding should also
be applicable to any and all Hawai'i state and local government records
concerning Obama wherever located including, but not limited to, his school
and other records.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin prays for relief as follows:
1. For a declaration by this Court that the attached record reflects
defendants have failed to comply with the UIPA in good faith, and that
Plaintiff as an author and writer and cinéaste is a person to whom the
requested UIPA materials should be made available forthwith;
2. That because Obama is the President of the United States, he is not a
"private citizen" to whom normal privacy considerations are applicable. Any
Hawai'i state records or other medical and school records constitute
historical archives of this state and the United States and should be made
available to writers, journalists, historians and scholars such as Plaintiff.
3. For such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: May 4, 2010
Honolulu, Hawai'i
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.
Plaintiff Pro se
_____________________________________________________________
A 5/12/2010 announcement from the American Patriot Foundation
regarding the scheduled court-martialling of LTC Terry Lakin:
The Army has now officially scheduled a formal hearing its case against
Terry, who is being court-martialled by the Army for refusing to obey orders
to deploy to Afghanistan because the President refuses --even in the face of
mounting evidence to the contrary-- to prove his eligibility under the
Constitution to hold office.
The hearing will be held on June 11, 2010 at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center in Washington, D.C. at 9:00 a.m. in room 134 of Building T-2. All
proceedings are open to the media and public.
The court martial process, which begins with the military's equivalent of a
preliminary hearing in a civilian criminal court, known as an "Article 32
Investigation" (referring to the provision found in that section in the Uniform
Code of Military Justice) was commenced on May 3, 2010, when LTC Lakin
was notified that the Art. 32 hearing would take place May 6, 2010. Lakin's
civilian lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, immediately requested a continuance to
June 11, 2010, and this request has been granted. Assisting Jensen in his
defense of Lakin is a very experienced senior member of the Army's Judge
Advocate General's corps... (snip)
For further info concerning the Foundation,
see http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/about.html .
_____________________________________________________________
http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/article_e9a191d1-df10566a-a234-06ee82d193c9.html
Iowa arraignment for 9 in Obama loan case
Quad City Times
Associated Press | Posted: Monday, May 24, 2010 7:19 am
[This article concerns the arraignment on federal charges pending for nine
individuals “accused of accessing President Barack Obama's student loan
records while employed for a Department of Education contractor in Iowa…”]
[Note: This information is provided here owing to the discovery that
can be expected to take place as this legal action proceeds and the
light that discovery may shed on Mr. Obama’s citizenship status
during his student years.]
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/
June 3, 2010
ARMY REFUSES LAKIN'S REQUEST TO HAVE PRESIDENT OBAMA
TESTIFY AND REFUSES TO ALLOW ANY WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE
FROM HAWAII OR ELSEWHERE ON ELIGIBILITY QUESTION HEARING TO PROCEED ON JUNE 11th.
See the File Section for a copy of for June 1, 2010 ruling by the
Investigating Officer of the U.S. Department of the Army on defense request
for witnesses and evidence US v. LTC. Terrence Lakin (Court Martial
scheduled June 11, 2010 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
[Cancelled/Waived: See below.]
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/video2.html
June 9, 2010
Video of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin Discussing his Case and the Denial of Access
to Key Witnesses and Information:
American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
www.safeguardourconstitution.com
PRESS RELEASE
DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR LTC TERRY LAKIN WAIVES
PRELIMINARY HEARING AND ANNOUNCES NEW
YOUTUBE VIDEO
____________________________
CASE TO NOW PROCEED DIRECTLY TO GENERAL COURT MARTIAL
_____________________________________
HEARING WILL NOT PROCEED ON JUNE 11, 2010
Washington, D.C., June 9, 2010. Saying that the Army has made it
"impossible for me to present a defense"
at the Article 32 "preliminary hearing" previously scheduled for June 11,
2010, Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin has officially waived -cancelled-that
proceeding. Therefore, the case will move inexorably on to a General Court
Martial. The punishment for the charges filed against LTC Lakin carry a
maximum term of four years in the penitentiary. Lakin expects the trial to
be held in the early fall, but this has yet to be determined. The next step
will be the formal referral of the charges by Lakin's Commanding General,
Major General Carla Hawley-Bowland, followed by his arraignment before a
Military Judge, both of which are expected before the end of June. (snip)
----end---For further information,
contact: Margaret Hemenway at (202) 448-9015
____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=167005
Army disses officer challenging Obama
'Extremely talented' evaluation altered to 'does not possess sound
judgment'
Posted: June 15, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
10:32 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
The U.S. Army recommended that Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin be promoted to
Colonel and described him as "an extremely talented, highly knowledgeable
senior Army clinician with significant field and consultant experience" in an
evaluation that came two weeks after he posted an online video declaring
he would refuse orders until President Obama documents his eligibility to
be president.
Now military officials have gone back into their records and altered their
evaluation, chastising Lakin for not having "the sound judgment required of
a senior officer."
As WND reported, Lakin posted the video of his challenge to Obama to
document his eligibility March 30. Since then, the military has launched a
court-martial against him for disobeying orders, and a trial is expected to
be scheduled later this year. (snip)
__________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=172889
Appeals panel considers whether Obama is even American
Case challenges eligibility for failure to provide proof of citizenship
Posted: June 29, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
9:02 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Three judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are beginning to
review a case that alleges Barack Obama is not eligible to be president – in
fact, he may not even be American.
The federal court case was brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of
plaintiffs Charles Kerchner and others, and had been dismissed at the
district court level.
Arguments earlier had been scheduled for June 29 in the dispute, but a
court order recently cancelled the hearing and instead announced the case
would be decided based on the merits of the legal briefs submitted by
attorneys.
A document from court clerk Marcia Waldron said the case will be decided
by Judge Dolores Sloviter, who was appointed by Jimmy Carter; Maryanne
Trump Barry, who was appointed by Bill Clinton; and Thomas Hardiman,
who was appointed by George W. Bush.
The filings were due on the day the hearing would have been held, but
there's no published timetable for a decision to be released.
The case argues Obama probably is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a
"natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution of the chief
executive officer,
On a blog dealing with the case, lead plaintiff Kerchner has delivered
updates.
The case filed was against Obama, Congress and others, just before
Obama was sworn into office.
The case has argued, "Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father
was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama
himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born.
"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that
he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth
Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in
Hawaii," the arguments have claimed.
The claims from Apuzzo came in opposition to government demands that
the case be dismissed for lack of "standing" on the part of the plaintiffs.
(snip)
____________________________________________________________
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/93/126/Attorney_Mario_Apuzzo_Response_t
o_the_3rd_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_Ruling_in_Kerchner_v._Obama_Congr
ess_-_July_4th,_2010_-.html
Attorney Mario Apuzzo Response to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
Ruling in Kerchner v. Obama/Congress - July 4th, 2010 Contributed by BirtherReport.com (Reporter)
Sunday, July 04, 2010 5:10
Via Attorney Apuzzo: - The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms the
Dismissal of the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress Case for Lack of Standing and
Orders Attorney Apuzzo to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Assessed
Damages and Costs On July 2, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
precedential decision[embedded below] affirming the New Jersey Federal
District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case
for lack of Article III standing which is required for the Court to have subject
matter jurisdiction under that article. It also ordered that I show cause in
14 days why the Court should not find me liable for damages and costs
suffered by the defendants in having to defend what the court considers to
be a “frivolous” appeal. Neither the Federal District Court nor
Obama/Congress et al argued that our case was frivolous. Nevertheless, the
appeals court on its own gave me notice that it wants me to show cause why
I should not have to pay for the defendants damages and costs incurred in
defending the action.
The Court did not find that the merits of our case are “frivolous.” Rather, it
found “frivolous” my appealing to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals the
Federal District Court’s finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to ask
that court to decide the merits of their claim that Putative President Obama
is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” that he has yet to
conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii, that Congress failed to
exercise its constitutional duty to properly vet and investigate Obama’s
“natural born Citizen” status, and that former Vice President and President
of the Senate, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
were complicit in that Congressional failure. (snip)
[For the Appeal Decision and related material, see
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33873934/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-AppealDecision-US-3rd-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-PA-July-2-2010 or Kerchner v
Obama & Congress Appeal - Decision - July 2, 2010 - US 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals PA – ]
______________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176325
Senate-seeker wants Obama birth-certificate treatment
Mexican-born candidate: 'If I didn't prove citizenship, I'd be
removed from the ballot'
Posted: July 08, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
9:20 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
A Mexican-born candidate for U.S. Senate said he is considering a lawsuit
against the Missouri secretary of state for discrimination because her office
forced him to produce a birth certificate but "didn't make Obama show proof
of citizenship" to appear on the ballot.
Hector Maldonado, 38, a self-described "Lincolnian Republican conservative,"
is seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Missouri. He was
born one of 10 children in Durango, Mexico. His father is a migrant field
worker who owns a small hog ranch in Perris, Calif.
During the following July 5 interview with Karen Berka of Branson Radio Live
posted on YouTube, Maldonado explains why he thinks his rights were
violated when the secretary of state's office asked for proof of U.S.
citizenship when he filed to run for the Senate:
Maldonado, a U.S. Army combat veteran who served in Iraq and
Afghanistan, explains on his website that he became a U.S. citizen in 1995.
But he said Secretary of State Robin Carnahan sent him a letter in May
asking him to produce documentation.
"It said, 'Hey, you have to prove you're a citizen.' I ignored it," he said. "You
know, Obama ignored it, so I figured I could get away with it, too."
The audience began laughing, applauding and cheering during his statement.
Maldonado continued, "But it's not that simple. I didn't get away with it. I
got a certified letter from Ms. Robin Carnahan's office saying that if I did not
prove that I was a U.S. citizen, then I would be removed from the ballot."
He claims Carnahan's office gave him a deadline of May 12.
"I got all my documents together: my birth certificate, which is a Mexican
birth certificate; my naturalization certificate; my orders sending me to Iraq
and Afghanistan; my bronze-star citations and a couple of officer evaluations
that say I'm a pretty good and effective leader," he said. "So I brought all
this documentation, and they were only interested in the naturalization
certificate. They made a photocopy of it."
Maldonado said he asked Carnahan's office if his citizenship documentation
would be public record and available to anyone who wants a copy.
"They said, oh yes, absolutely, anyone that wants proof, we have it," he
explained. "I said, OK, can you do me a favor then? I'm sure Ms. Carnahan
requested the same of Barack Obama when he petitioned to get on the
Missouri ballot to become president."
He added, "They had no response. They had nothing." (snip)
[Website for Hector Maldonado: http://www.HectorforFreedom.com ]
___________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176277
Has 'standing' been created in hunt for Obama birth doc?
Appellate judges threaten penalties for seeking president's
information
Posted: July 08, 2010 9:20 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
By Bob Unruh
A decision by Judges Dolores Sloviter, Maryanne Trump Barry and Thomas
Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may have opened the door
to questions on the record about President Obama's birth documentation and
eligibility to be president, according to an attorney in the case.
The judges' opinion recently dismissed as "frivolous" an appeal of a lower
court decision throwing out questions about whether the British Nationality
Act of 1948 made Obama, at his birth to an American mother and Kenyan
father, a subject of the British crown, thus possibly making him ineligible
under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born
citizen."
The case filed was against Obama, Congress and others, just before Obama
was sworn into office, arguing that Obama was a British subject and not a
U.S. citizen.
"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that
he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth
Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in
Hawaii," the lawsuit claimed.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo represented Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T.
Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the
Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides
that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral
College Electors."
A lower court dismissed the action, claiming the plaintiffs lack "standing" to
make a claim about an alleged violation of the Constitution – meaning they
weren't personally "injured" by the act.
The 3rd Circuit agreed.
"It is axiomatic that standing to sue is a prerequisite to Article III
jurisdiction," the opinion said. "This constitutional mandate requires that
appellants show, inter alia, an 'injury in fact.'"
Apuzzo noted that the court refused to find the merits of the case "frivolous"
but did find the appeal "frivolous."
"The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish that they suffered an
'injury in fact.' They said that the injury that plaintiffs allege is … not
concrete or particularized enough to satisfy Article III standing. They found
that these injuries are 'too generalized' for Article III courts. They added
that plaintiffs' injuries are not 'concrete and particularized' because they are
'harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people,'" he said….
He told WND he definitely will explore the issue of "standing" now because of
the possible penalties, which might be considered an "injury."
He confirmed such circumstances could change the balance of the
arguments.
"I'm going to address that in the papers [to be filed]," he told WND. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=178321
Senator: Resolve eligibility in court
'I support organizations' that raise birth challenge
Posted: July 12, 2010 9:00 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A Republican senator from Louisiana, David Vitter, is suggesting the dispute
over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president be resolved in court.
"I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that
to court," the Associated Press reported a video of the event revealed him
saying.
Vitter becomes just the latest high-profile leader, and the first U.S. senator,
to take such a strong stand on the issue.
It's also significant that the AP, which has stated publicly that the president's
"birth certificate" has been made public even though the image of the
document posted online actually is a "certification of live birth," which under
Hawaiian procedures was available to those not born in the state, reported
on Vitter's comments.
Vitter was responding to a constituent who on Sunday at a town hall
meeting in Metairie, La., asked about Obama's "refusal to produce" a
"birth certificate."
The AP reported the crowd applauded the question, and Vitter said he
doesn't have personal "standing" for litigation.
But he said he supports those groups that are bringing the question to court.
"I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it," he
said.
He said "first and foremost" Americans need to "fight the Obama agenda at
the ballot box starting this fall."
Vitter said, according to the AP report, that the matters of the nation are too
important to be diverted by distractions. (snip)
[Other political figures also raising eligibility questions are noted in the rest
of the article.]
____________________________________________________________
From http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appealsfinds.html
Thursday, July 22, 2010 2:41 PM
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Attorney Apuzzo Not Liable
for Obama's/Congress’ Damages and Costs Incurred by Them in
Defending the Kerchner Appeal
On July 2, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision
affirming the New Jersey Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner et
al v. Obama/Congress et al case for lack of Article III standing. The Court
ordered that I show cause in 14 days why the Court should not find me
liable for just damages and costs suffered by the defendants, not in having
to defend against the merits of plaintiffs’ underlying claims that Putative
President Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” that he has yet to
conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii, that Congress failed to
exercise its constitutional duty to properly vet and investigate Obama’s
“natural born Citizen” status, and that former Vice President and President of
the Senate, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
were complicit in that Congressional failure, but rather in having to
defendant against what the court considers to be a frivolous appeal of the
District Court’s dismissal of their claims on the ground of Article III standing.
On Monday, July 19, 2010, I filed my response. This afternoon, on July 22,
2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on whether it
should impose the damages and costs upon me. The Court has decided not
to impose any damages and costs upon me and has discharged its order to
show cause. This means that the matter of damages and costs is closed.
Here is the Court’s decision:
"ORDER (SLOVITER, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges) On July 2,
2010, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause directing Appellants’ counsel
to show cause in writing why he should not be subject to an Order pursuant
to F.R.A.P. 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal. In response, Mario Apuzzo
filed a 95-page statement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements
directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds
unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as
the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing.
However, based on Mr. Apuzzo's explanation of his efforts to research the
applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause,
filed. Sloviter, Authoring Judge. (PDB)."
I want to thank everyone who supported and encouraged me in this battle.
This includes everyone who expressed their feelings on this matter through
blog posts, articles, comments, and emails.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 22, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
End of quoted material
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/pressrelease/pressrelease20100812.html
American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com
PRESS RELEASE
Army Refers Charges Against Lakin To Court Martial
Military Judge Appointed
Arraignment Set for Hearing on August 6, 2010
Washington, D.C., August 2, 2010. The Army has now referred charges
against LTC Terrence Lakin for a General Court Martial. This action triggered
the appointment of a Military Judge to preside over the trial, which will likely
be scheduled before October, and held in Washington, D.C. at Ft. McNair.
On August 6, 2010 at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C., the court will convene
for the purpose of Judge Lind taking Lakin’s plea to the charges which
consist of “missing movement” and of refusing to obey orders. Today Lakin
stated: “I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead ‘not guilty’ to them
because of my conviction that our Commander-in-Chief may be ineligible
under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices.
The truth matters. The Constitution matters. If President Obama is a natural
born citizen then the American people deserve to see proof, and if he is not,
then I believe the orders in this case were illegal.” If convicted, Lakin faces
up to four years at hard labor in a federal penitentiary.
LTC Lakin is a doctor and is in his 18th year of service in the Army. He is
Board Certified in Family Medicine and Occupational and Environmental
Medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight
surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was
also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized
in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department’s outstanding flight
surgeons. In March of this year, he announced in a video posted on
YouTube that he would refuse to obey orders until receiving proof of the
President’s eligibility. So far, more than 200,000 people have viewed that
video.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind will preside over the trial. Before becoming a
judge, she served tours of duty both prosecuting and defending soldiers in
court martial proceedings. She is a 1982 magna cum laude graduate of
Siena College, and earned her law degree from Albany Law School in 1985.
As Military Judge, she will decide all matters of law, including requests from
the defense for discovery, and a motion the prosecution has said it will make
to determine the lawfulness of the orders LTC Lakin is charged with refusing
to obey. A “jury” comprised of Army officers will decide based on the facts
whether Lakin is guilty or not guilty of the various felony-equivalent charges
pending against him.
In standing up for his convictions and in keeping with his training that illegal
orders must be disobeyed, LTC Lakin has been widely praised for upholding
the rule of law and the paramount supremacy in our society of the United
States Constitution.
Lakin is represented by military counsel, and by Paul Jensen, a civilian
attorney from California who has been provided to him by the American
Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster
appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, which has established a
fund for Lakin’s legal defense. Further details are available on the
Foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
----end---For further information, contact: Margaret Hemenway at (202) 725-7659
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/pressrelease/pressrelease20100812.html
American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com
PRESS RELEASE
Army Refers Charges Against Lakin To Court Martial
Military Judge Appointed
Arraignment Set for Hearing on August 6, 2010
Washington, D.C., August 2, 2010. The Army has now referred charges
against LTC Terrence Lakin for a General Court Martial. This action triggered
the appointment of a Military Judge to preside over the trial, which will likely
be scheduled before October, and held in Washington, D.C. at Ft. McNair.
On August 6, 2010 at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C., the court will convene
for the purpose of Judge Lind taking Lakin’s plea to the charges which
consist of “missing movement” and of refusing to obey orders. Today Lakin
stated: “I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead ‘not guilty’ to them
because of my conviction that our Commander-in-Chief may be ineligible
under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices.
The truth matters. The Constitution matters. If President Obama is a natural
born citizen then the American people deserve to see proof, and if he is not,
then I believe the orders in this case were illegal.” If convicted, Lakin faces
up to four years at hard labor in a federal penitentiary.
LTC Lakin is a doctor and is in his 18th year of service in the Army. He is
Board Certified in Family Medicine and Occupational and Environmental
Medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight
surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was
also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized
in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department’s outstanding flight
surgeons. In March of this year, he announced in a video posted on
YouTube that he would refuse to obey orders until receiving proof of the
President’s eligibility. So far, more than 200,000 people have viewed that
video.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind will preside over the trial. Before becoming a
judge, she served tours of duty both prosecuting and defending soldiers in
court martial proceedings. She is a 1982 magna cum laude graduate of
Siena College, and earned her law degree from Albany Law School in 1985.
As Military Judge, she will decide all matters of law, including requests from
the defense for discovery, and a motion the prosecution has said it will make
to determine the lawfulness of the orders LTC Lakin is charged with refusing
to obey. A “jury” comprised of Army officers will decide based on the facts
whether Lakin is guilty or not guilty of the various felony-equivalent charges
pending against him.
In standing up for his convictions and in keeping with his training that illegal
orders must be disobeyed, LTC Lakin has been widely praised for upholding
the rule of law and the paramount supremacy in our society of the United
States Constitution.
Lakin is represented by military counsel, and by Paul Jensen, a civilian
attorney from California who has been provided to him by the American
Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster
appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, which has established a
fund for Lakin’s legal defense. Further details are available on the
Foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
----end---for further information, contact: Margaret Hemenway at (202) 725-7659
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=17971&Disp=12
USA - CONSTITUTION & LAW
See other USA - CONSTITUTION & LAW Articles
Title: Lawful Orders - Manual of Courts-Martial and the case of Lt. Col
Terrence Lakin
_____________________________________________________________
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/birther_army_doc_d
efers_plea_until_oct_13_court_ma.php
August 6, 2010
Birther Army Doctor Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who faces a Court Martial for
refusing to deploy to Afghanistan, declined to enter a plea at his arraignment
today in Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Lakin is charged with refusing orders to deploy amid his questions over
whether President Obama was born in the United States, and by extension
his eligibility to be Commander-in-Chief.
According to MSNBC's Jim Miklaszewski, Lakin wanted to defer his plea "until
the actual Court Martial," which today was scheduled for October 13.
If convicted, Lakin faces up to four years in federal prison.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=188649
Army gags officer challenging Obama eligibility
Escorts him from preliminary hearing under guard to prevent
communications
Posted: August 06, 2010 4:37 pm Eastern By Thom Redmond
2010 WorldNetDaily
FT. BELVOIR, Va. –
….The Army held a hearing today at Ft. Belvoir, Va., for Lt. Col. Terrence
Lakin......At the conclusion of the arraignment, Lakin was ordered not to
speak with the press and was taken back to Reed under military escort,
surprising and disturbing a civilian lawyer who has been working on his case.
"This was completely inappropriate. Col Lakin was brought here and taken
away from here as if he was a common criminal. He was prohibited from
talking to the press for two minutes; he was prohibited from talking to
anybody, even me," Paul Rolf Jenson said…..
There also now are several hearings scheduled in the case, starting with an
Aug. 20 event that will deal with evidence in the dispute.
According to the court, a second hearing on Aug. 27 would be for
government "objections" to the evidence, and Jensen said he expects
opposition from the White House at that point.
That's because the strategy in the case will include requests for evidence
that Obama is, in fact, eligible to be commander-in-chief, evidence that
could come through depositions with Hawaii state records holders – who
presumably have access to Obama's original birth documentation if he was
born there as he has written.
Two other hearings are set Sept. 2 and Sept. 14 in the case before the trial
date of Oct. 13…………………..
Lakin also has the choice of being tried by a jury of five military officers, who
would vote by secret ballot on his guilt or innocence. Alternatively, he could
choose to be tried by the trial judge alone, who would determine the result.
Jensen deferred that choice for the moment, but believes it would be better
if Lakin is tried by a group of his peers.
After Lind requested that Lakin submit his plea of guilty or not guilty, Lakin's
attorney said "No plea."
"A motion to dismiss must be brought before the plea is entered, and after
the proceedings are commenced," Jensen explained. "In that thirty second
period we didn't have time to bring the motion, but we will."
Asked how his client would plead, Jenson said if the motion to dismiss the
charges is denied, Lakin would plead not guilty.
The trial will now move to the discovery phase, where Jensen will again be
making requests for President Obama's birth certificate and other relevant
documents to support Lakin case. (snip)
__________________________________________________________
On August 12, 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ACCEPTED the appeal
from a Decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of
California,
No. 09-CV-00082· of Barnett v. Obama based upon the decision of
Honorable David O. Carter January, 2010 .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35807802/BARNETT-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-9thCIRCUIT-18-KREEP-Appellants-Opening-Brief-18-Transport-Room
Docket Nos. 09-56827 (L), 10-55084
In the United States Court of Appeals
For the Ninth Circuit
WILEY S. DRAKE and MARKHAM ROBINSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
ALAN KEYES, Ph.D., Ambassador, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
Appeal from a Decision of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California,
No. 09-CV-00082· Honorable David O. Carter
BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
GARY G. KREEP, ESQ.
CHRISTOPHER P. TUCKER, E SQ.
UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION
932 D Street, Suite 2
Ramona, California 92065
(760) 788-6624 Telephone
(760) 788-6414 Facsimile
Attorneys for Appellants,
Wiley S. Drake and Markham ……
[from cover page]
Since the Office of President of the United States is the most powerful
position in the country, the risk of “corrupt and partisan action” is great if the
authority to determine eligibility is placed in the hands of those who are likely to
gain an advantage over their opposing political parties. Given this risk, the proper
remedy for eligibility disputes is to bring such disputes to the Court for a
determination, rather than to Congress or the Electoral College, and because this
Court has the power to make determinations of fact and law regarding
controversies over the eligibility of a political candidate with little likelihood of
partisan results. For all these reasons, the issue of a candidate’s eligibility is not a
political question and the Court may properly make a determination on this
issue. (snip)
[from page 21 and 22]
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=197837
General: Obama records 'critical' to 'our republic'
McInerney: Eligibility issue 'of such magnitude that its significance
can scarcely be imagined'
Posted: August 31, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
8:10 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A retired lieutenant general from the U.S. Air Force who commanded forces
armed with nuclear weapons says the disclosure of Barack Obama's
documentation proving his eligibility to be commander in chief is critical not
just to the defense of an officer challenging the president's status, but to the
preservation of the nation itself.
The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas
G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed today by an
organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
Lakin had invited his own court-martial because he is unable to follow orders
under the chain of command with Obama at its head until and unless
Obama's eligibility is documented.
A hearing is scheduled in Lakin's court-martial case Thursday at which a
ruling is expected on defense requests for the very evidence that McInerney
is citing.
The general, who retired in 1994 after serving as vice commander in chief of
USAF forces in Europe, commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing and
assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, among other positions, said
the chain of command issue is critical in today's world, since officers are
obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders.
"Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained
that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution," he
said in the affidavit.
There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and
discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of
command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief
who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military
officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the
president, but rather, to the Constitution."
He continued, explaining, "good order and discipline requires not blind
obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge – sometimes
under great adversity – whether an order is illegal.
"The president of the United States, as the commander in chief, is the
source of all military authority," he said. "The Constitution requires the
president to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If
he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a
break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can
scarcely be imagined."
Officials said McInerney is the highest-ranking officer yet to lend public
support to Lakin………..
McInerney's affidavit "acknowledges widespread concerns over the
president's constitutional eligibility and demands the president release his
birth records or the court authorize discovery," the foundation said. (snip)
______________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=198465
Judge to Lakin: Find another defense
Rules that officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence
Posted: September 02, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
4:16 pm Eastern
By Thom Redmond
FT. MEADE, Md. – A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the
prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no
place for Barak Obama's presidential eligibility to be evaluated.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to
be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be
denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from
those who may have access to the records.
With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled
on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied
the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the
president's eligibility.
Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such
claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face
and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have
been sufficient for Lakin.
Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin's civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But
he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his
defense.
Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court
martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in
his or her defense.
Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.
She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the
president, and it's up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting
president. (snip)
The decision came just days after a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general
who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons said the disclosure of
Obama's documentation is not just critical to Lakin's defense, but to the
preservation of the nation itself.
The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas
G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed by an
organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. (snip)
______________________________________________________
For the affidavit of Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, Ret. , see
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/affidav
it-lt-general-mcinerney-as-filed.pdf
__________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=210521
Supremes get case against 'putative' President Obama
Petition: 'There exists possibility that he could be an illegal alien'
Posted: October 02, 2010 12:35 am Eastern By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A new court filing that returns the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to the
U.S. Supreme Court warns that unless the judiciary makes a definitive
decision in the dispute, it will be the same as allowing the political interests
in the United States to amend the U.S. Constitution at will.
A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed with the high court in the 3rd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the dismissal of a case
brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr.,
Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the
Senate, the House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney
and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides
that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral
College Electors."
The trial court rejected the case based on issues of "standing" and never
addressed the core issues presented. The appellate court did the same.
Now Apuzzo has escalated the issue to the highest court in the land,
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filedwith-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress) suggesting
that "the constitutional issue … cannot be decided by the political parties and
a voting majority. Our nation is ultimately guided by the Constitution and
the rule of law, not by majority rule. Allowing the political parties and the
voting majorities to decide constitutional issues would be tantamount to
amending the Constitution without going through the amendment process
prescribed by Article V of the Constitution and abandoning the basic
principles of republican government."……………..
"Obama was born a British subject/citizen to a British subject/citizen father
and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and never
intended to be one. Obama's father was never even an immigrant to the
USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident. Obama's father was a
foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a
British subject/citizen to this day because he has never renounced that
citizenship. According to this lawsuit, Obama was born a dual-citizen with
dual allegiance and loyalty and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to be
the president and commander-in-chief of our military," Kerchner explained.
The lawsuit simply seeks a trial on the merits "to determine the true facts of
Obama's legal identity and exact citizenship status and to require 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" (snip)
___________________________________________________________
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorarifiled-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress
October 1, 2010
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UN ITE D STAT E S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TH IR D
CIR C U IT
232184
A
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR., et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
MARIO APUZZO
Counsel of Record
LAW OFFICES OF MARIO APUZZO
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
(732) 521-1900
Apuzzo@erols.com
______________________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=221373
Supremes more likely to rule on substance of eligibility case
Lawyer: 'Environment is more favorable for judges to decide on the
merits without fear'
Posted: October 30, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
1:00 am Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
California attorney Orly Taitz says the changing political environment has
made it much more likely that, for the first time, a U.S. court will rule on the
merits of an Obama eligibility case……
Taitz recently presented the U.S. Supreme Court with a petition for a writ of
certiorari in her case, Orly Taitz v. Thomas D. MacDonald, et al. A writ of
certiorari means the court agrees to review the decision of a lower court.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to reply to the new filing and announce
whether it will hear the case on Nov. 24.
Taitz v. MacDonald is now the second case challenging President Obama's
eligibility to serve in the Oval Office up for review by the Supreme Court....
"Today things are changing," Taitz continued. "Republicans are projected to
take the House of Representatives with big margins, and Obama's approval
ratings are way down, so the justices might feel less intimidated to rule on
the merits of the case."
Taitz v. MacDonald was originally brought on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes,
an Army flight surgeon questioning the validity of deployment orders issued
under Obama's signature. The case argues that Obama has not proven that
he is a "natural-born citizen" of the United States, which Article 2 of the
Constitution requires any president to be. (snip)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=225561
Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted
'There is no specific federal agency' to review candidates for federal
office
Posted: November 08, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
8:38 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not
Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check
Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and that status remains
undocumented to this day.
It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or
elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the
meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.
The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the
U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including
Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth
certificate. It explains no one was required to do so……
The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices
April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and member of the House
how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama's
birth certificate.
Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law
Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a
memorandum written for the subject "Qualifications for the Office of
President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a
Candidate"
It can be viewed and downloaded on Scribd.com. ……………
The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:
"Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now
President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called 'long' version
of a 'birth certificate' from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are
'vetted' for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the
various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status."
……The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety
to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom
documentation was concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as
president.
It states:
"Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it
should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or
requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original
birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official
of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal
candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation.
Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets'
candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return."
What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the
federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2,
Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for
Obama's certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, because no
law or regulation required them to look. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
See http://www.scribd.com/doc/41192270/CRS-Members-of-CongressInternal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-in-Answer-to-ObamaEligibility-Questions
for the entire April 3, 2009 Memorandum by Jack Maskell of the
Congressional Research Service
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=229373
Show birth certificate, or don't get on ballot
Eligibility storm clouds on horizon for Obama
Posted: November 17, 2010 1:39 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A Texas state lawmaker has filed a bill that would require candidates for
president or vice president to show their birth certificates to the secretary of
state before being allowed on the ballot, and the measure could become
effective as early as next year if adopted and signed into law.
The move by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, renews the threat to a second Oval
Office term for Barack Obama that was posed last year when the state
House in Arizona actually adopted the requirement, but the session ended
before the Senate acted.
Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:
It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state
may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president
unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate
indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen." ………………
Berman also ….even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be
national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible
problem……
WND reported during the last series of state legislatures that the issue
was very near success in Arizona.
There, the state House of Representatives adopted a similar plan put forward
by Rep. Judy Burges, but it died in the state Senate in the closing days of
the session. Burgess has told WND she will work to bring the plan forward
again.
A number of other states also have taken launched their own work on the
subject:

Georgia has a plan by Rep. Mark Hatfield, House Bill 1516, introduced
just as the last legislative session was closing. He told WND he expects
to use it to create support for the plan when the legislature returns
this winter.

New Hampshire had a proposal pending that would require candidates
meet the "qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution."

Oklahoma had a proposal that would be a referendum for voters on
the issue.

South Carolina had discussions over a plan to prohibit the name of a
candidate on a ballot "unless that person shows conclusive evidence
that he is a legal citizen of the United States."

Several other states have discussed requirements for candidates but
they did not specifically address the Article 2, Section 1 constitutional
compliance so it's unclear whether they would have addressed
Obama's situation.
Then there's Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.
Posey's H.R. 1503 states:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the
principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of
President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy
of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation
as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications
for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232073
U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?
Posted: November 23, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
9:45 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility
question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard
on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President
Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a
"natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the
U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner
vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of
the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person
born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the
suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and
we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's
nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a
federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may
choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be
announced as early as Wednesday.
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death
knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a naturalborn citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a
practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is
something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British
subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow
discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we
don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not
even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born
in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We
don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his
records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme
Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama
would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's
ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent
$1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is
probably over $2 million now. (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=233177
Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter
Case questioning eligibility says facts don't support Obama story
Posted: November 26, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
11:45 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution
will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of
a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of
government.
The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for
the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a
case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force
officer.
The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:

"Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the
decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts
to support its claims?"

"By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a
'natural born citizen' as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the
Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the
issues raised by the complaint?"

"In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the
issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted,
twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry
during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined
with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such
obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its
opinion void?"

"Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as
set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama
above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and
threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of
law?"

"Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court
and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil
Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased
elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional
law?"
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered,"
the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its
opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the
Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he at some point could be
subject to Obama's orders……………..
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the
Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of
Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of
his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other
documents that "he does not want the public to know." (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
No. 10-446
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United
States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism.
(Distributed)
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
Nov 29 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism
GRANTED.
Nov 29 2010 Petition DENIED.
_____________________________________________________________