Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
DON’T MISS THIS ... I don’t know if “convert” applies exactly, but Kerchner discusses in detail his theory about the birth cert, and mentioned that there would be a decision on his case this week. Also gets into McCain’s status as a citizen.
__________________________________________________
Monday, August 3, 2009
Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit, converts Bill Cunningham into a Birther
Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit, converts Talk Show Radio Host Bill Cunningham of 700 WLW of Cincinnati, Ohio into a Birther.
Hi all.
I waited 1 1/2 hours on the line but got on during the last hour of the Bill Cunningham Show out of Cincinnati, Ohio, on Sunday night, 2 Aug 2009. “Willie” Cunningham was challenging people to give him a credible explanation as to how those two birth announcements got into the Honolulu newspapers if Obama was not born in Hawaii.
So I decided to try and get on the show to explain it to him. It was a long, long wait, but I finally got on in the last 15 minutes of the show.
I finally got on during the last 10-15 minutes of the third hour of his show. Below is the link to the podcast. Use the scroll bar to fast advance to the last 15 minutes of the show if you don’t wish to listen to the whole 3rd hour segment of the show.
((Scroll forward to about 3/4 of the way thru the selection ))
Summarizing what I explained to Willie:
I explained to Willie how those two newspaper advertisements in the Honolulu Advertiser and the other paper have no independent probative value. It’s the garbage in garbage out data effect.
If the birth registration was a fraud perpetrated by the grandmother, then those newspaper filings made by the HI Health Dept to those two newspapers (which was standard practice for all births registered) are therefore fraudulent evidence too. I told him the reason grandma did it was to simply get her new Kenyan born grandson retro-active U.S. citizenship, a valued and desirable thing to have even back then.
Of course grandma when doing this never anticipated that her grandson would grow up to be the President one day and have this fraud and lie by her exposed. But it now is being exposed and that is what Obama is afraid of.
Grandma Dunham in Hawaii was a shrewd banker and business lady and had lots of lawyer friends at her bank and elsewhere to tell her how easy it was to do, i.e., file a phony birth record in Honolulu for her new grandson.
They surely told her the Hawaiian laws were so lax it would be very easy for grandma to do it via a simple mail-in birth registration form. No one from the Health Department ever checked the veracity of the facts for such filings by families back then registering a birth occurring at home, with no witnesses other than a family member.
So over the course of the discussion with Willie, I told him, yes there is probably a birth registered for Obama in Hawaii in the vital records database, but this vital record is a false registration in there, and that I did not believe that Obama was really born there in Hawaii based on the contradictory evidence being provided in Kenya by Obama’s Kenyan relatives.
And thus, Obama does not want the original birth registration documents released because it does not show he was born in any hospital, nor does it show any 3rd party independent non-family member witnesses, and this lack of corroborating evidence in the Hawaii records, will dispute what Obama has been telling everyone, i.e., that he was born in the Kapi’ olani Hospital.
Thus he’d be caught in another lie he’s telling to cover up the real truth. And thus, the testimony in Kenya will gain even more credibility if what Obama is saying happened in Hawaii does not check out via the original birth registration documents.
Willie got it. It sunk in. At the end of my segment with Willie he says he’s converting to a Birther. Maybe Willie will pass on what he’s learned to Hannity and some of his other talk radio friends.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
For more details on the lawsuit see: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
P.S. And if you want to help the current advertising and educational project also visit: http://www.protectourliberty.org/
I wouldn't think of watching that "guy" so I missed his "professional analysis."
What was it?
If 0bama didn’t hide facts, it wouldn’t be difficult to determine if he was eligible. It’s not just that “we cannot determine” it’s that HE is LYING and hiding almost every aspect of his entire life.
GIGO.
Provide me with an undisputed authority on that statement, and I will be delighted.
WHAT!!!??? Are you claiming there are different kinds of natural born citizens? The Constitution only has one kind!
With that, I'm off to bed, lol.
You deem Barack Obama the equivalent of Edwin Meese, the former Attorney General of the United States under Ronald Reagan and the hundred or so contributing scholars for the Heritage Foundation? Fascinating.
BTW, thanks for outing yourself.
Yes I see that He looks alot like his Grandad, you’re right.....but what’s up with the twitter comments from Joseph Farah? twitter.com/josephfarah
The 14th amendment’s “born or naturalized” clause makes perfectly good sense when one understands the concept of subset. Natural born citizens are a subset of “persons born... in the United States”. But there is some overlap between “citizen at birth” via statute, who may be born outside the US, and “citizens at birth” via the 14th amendment’s “born in the United States” clause. Someone born of a US Citizen parent and a foreign parent, where the US parent had met the necessary residency requirement, would be “citizens at birth”, but naturalized, since naturalization is all Congress has the power to define via statute. While persons “born in the US” are “citizens at birth” via the 14th amendment, no statute law required.
**
Do you have a cite for your post? I’m interested in it because I’ve had to fashion my understanding of all this on my own, and could not find the proper information to quite grasp what I think you’re getting at.
But again, your view presupposes an understanding of the meaning of natural born that does not seem to be undisputed. There are those who say what I’ve been saying, but I find my own position less than completely satisfactory because of the “no statute” thing, and I even forget where that comes from. I knew once, but I’ve forgotten. Was it part of a decision?
So what you said lights up a question in my mind that I had extinguished because I couldn’t get an answer, and eventually I just thought well, it makes sense that you have to have SOMETHING to define who is and who is not a citizen, so that must be natural born, absent anything ELSE that says otherwise. And in the light of the Supreme Court evidently using the terms interchangeably, which it does, it seemed that I had reached the right conclusion. But your post awakens that old question in me, so if you have some references, I’d appreciate knowing them. Thanks.
I hope I’m making sense. I think I know what I did. I said, “OK, if nobody can tell me what natural born means, I am going to read it as plain English.” And that’s what I did. Nobody can provide an undisputed legal definition, a definition that has the authority of the United States government behind it.
That is certifiably insane. That is just crazy.
So I am left to my own devices to find an answer that is NOT insane. I’ve done what I’ve done so far, but if you have a better answer, I’m all ears.
I don’t give a flying fig WHAT the answer is. I just think a society that cannot get its act together to determine definitively what legal requirements need to be met to be president of the country is a sick society that probably deserves to be extinguished.
I have never been so angry before.
Does anyone but me see the total
I N S A N I T Y
of this?
Why do we take it?
Arghhh.
I’m gong to bed. Holy garbanzos! It’s three-o-friggin-clock!
The Constitutional requirement is: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years "be a Senator", not "run for the Senate. Biden was born November 20, 1942, so he would be 30 before he could possibly "be a Senator". The Sec State of Delaware was correct, regrettably.
You're right; here the qualification for the position was, in the end, a function of time. The Delaware Sec. of State agreed to put an underage U.S. Senate candidate on the ballot in Biden's case, but Biden was old enough to take office by the time he was sworn in.
The California Sec. of State refused to put an underage Presidential candidate on the ballot in Eldridge Cleaver's 1968 case. I think he was 34 at the time, and I don't know if he have been the Constitutionally-mandated 35 years old by the time he assumed office, if he had won the election.
What I think is important here is that Cleaver had to show his birth certificate to determine whether he could get on the ballot. (I don't know for sure but I guess Biden had to show his also.) It's good precedent and I don't know if the courts will notice this.
Why would Susan Blake abruptly hang up after question #10?
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
To answer that question in the affirmative, would be a direct contradiction to Jay's recommendation to Washinton, which of course the NBC requirement was THEN added.
I’m sure it is his dad is not really his dad.
We, FReepers, discussed this many months ago.
I think Farah is taking content from the Long Thread.
I've seen a chart someplace which defines five types of citizenship, along the lines you suggested.
Yes, he is a nasty guy. The older black Chicago leftist, Alice Palmer, who introduced Barack to the Chicago Marxist community, whom he removed as his Illinois Senate opponent for registration irregulaties became a Hillary supporter. I recall that Bill Clinton called him a “thug”, which meant things we didn't understand at the time.
What happens to Obama if his ineligiblity, about which there is no doubt, is addressed? I'm guessing that Biden, who would be a pro tem president until a new election chose a replacement, would pardon Barack for what must be many felonies. I doubt he'd be welcome in Saudi Arabia - Michelle's would not be happy in a burka - or Venezuela; Chavez is a one-man show. Kenya, no thanks to Barack, who tried to engineer a victory for his KGB-trained cousin (East Germany), which would have guranteed Sharia Law for the Christian Republic probably wouldn't be happy to see him. Iran is Shia and Barack is a natural born Sunni, so I don't see a strong attraction for Barack there(though Kohmeni, Jimmy Carter's candidate, was not even Persian, and a Sunni as well).
First, we need to get him out of our harm's way.
“There are citizens born on US soil of citizens, who are natural born citizens.”
Provide me with an undisputed authority on that statement, and I will be delighted.
WHAT!!!??? Are you claiming there are different kinds of natural born citizens? The Constitution only has one kind!
With that, I’m off to bed, lol.
***
That’s what the argument is about — who says a child of two citizens is the only kind of natural born citizen? You? Sorry, that’s not good enough? Vattel? Still not good enough?
Four were born Ireland alone: Pierce Butler, South Carolina; James McHenry, Maryland; William Paterson, New Jersey; Thomas Fitzsimons, Pennsylvania.
Plus that bastard Hamiliton (literally) was born in the West Indies. James Wilson, Pennsylvania, was born in Scotland. I believe that is 6, out of the total of 40 or 15%. Hardly just a "handfull".
Source National Archives
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen);
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel):
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
So, this game of gotcha isn't quite working out for you. Maybe you can argue from the facts of the matter. There are differing schools of thought, and you do not belong to the same school as I do, clearly. Trying to tar me with wild claims of attacking Ed Meese is just pointless mudslinging.
Good night.
Edwin Meese is a NWO kinda guy. I personally wouldn’t take much of anything he has to say as being good for our sovereign country.
I don’t care if he turns into a birther.
What I want to see is the press and our talk shows hosts admitting Obama has sealed and spent vast sums of money to bar the release of information generally released by all presidential candidates over the last 50 years.
I’d love to see a few question how Obama, who has admitted to being governed by British Nationality, can be eligible under the Constitution.
And wouldn’t that be the impossible feat.
I can just imagine his demonic thinking.
*crew them ... they didn’t check me
out before I ran ..
Blatant audacity at its most satanic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.