Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Update ~~ colmado_naranja’s eBay auction .. still up .. at $2,850.
Go to the questions and answers at the end.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Plaintiffs Obtain Extension of Time to Answer Obama/Congress Motion to Dismiss
Defendants, Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint/petition. Their main argument is that the plaintiffs do not have standing and that all the defendants have immunity from all of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.
The current defense motion to dismiss the complaint/petition was returnable Friday, July 20, 2009. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due by Monday, July 6, 2009.
The defendants took over 4 months to file their motion. I was only given 2 weeks to respond. Given the critical importance of this case, the complexity and novelty of the constitutional issues, and the need to do a thorough job, I sought fit to request a 2-week extension of time to answer the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
I realize that by the extension we are losing two weeks, but winning the motion is more important than not losing the two weeks.
The new motion day is Monday, August 3, 2009. I will file our opposition papers at least 14 days prior to the new motion day, and the defendants shall file their reply papers, if any, at least seven calendar days prior to August 3, 2009.
I know that many of you have been posting on this blog your thoughts and analysis on how we can defeat the defendants’ motion. Your input is highly appreciated. I am asking that you continue to give me your ideas in this public blog.
I encourage the open exchange of ideas so that we may all arrive at the best answer. Only strategy and personal matters will be treated confidentially.
I will appreciate that if you do have a point you want to make, you provide a citation to support what you are saying, if a citation exists.
If you do not have a citation, still make your argument. I will consider all comments and choose which points to incorporate into our opposition brief.
The points to research and comment on are standing and immunity. For a full reading of how the defendants are using these defenses to try to convince the judicial branch of government not to address the issue of Obama’s Article II “natural born Citizen” eligibility, you may clique on the link in this blog and view the defendants’ brief
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/
that they filed in support of their motion to dismiss.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
~~~~
Looks like it’s time to forward suggestions to Mario Apuzzo now!
Email: apuzzo@erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906,
______________________________________________
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Chalice Show - Patriot’s Heart Broadcasting - BlogTalkRadio Network -10:30 p.m. EDT Sunday 5 Jul 2009 -
Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress Update
The Chalice Show - Patriot’s Heart Broadcasting - BlogTalkRadio Network 9 to 11 p.m. EDT Sunday 5 Jul 2009 -
Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress lawsuit update and discussion of the new publicity campaign to make more people aware that Obama is not an Article II natural born citizen to Constitutional Standards and to increase public awareness of the existence of this lawsuit.
The Main Stream Media (MSM) still refuses to discuss the eligibility issue and thus more paid media Advertorial type advertising will be done using the following theme:
Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090706-Issue-Wash-Times
I was on the last 1/2 hour segment of the Chalice Show from 10:30 to 11:00 p.m. EDT. Below is the link to download and listen to the two hour show.
The discussion of this case and the new advertising initiative begins 90 minutes in, the last half hour. Listen to it all or download it and fast forward to the last half hour where I discuss the case and
the new publicity fund initiative:
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm
The Chalice Show
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/07/06/The-Chalice-Show
Charles
Look closely.
The divorce form states mother and “child” are U.S. citizens, and elsewhere “oldest child at university”. The child is Barry’s sister Maya Soetoro. Barry was getting stoned at Occidental.
Checking in.
I’ve got the article. If you want the PDF I can email it to you, just Freepmail me where you want it sent. Here’s the text (I’m typing fast so pardon my mistakes):
24 G.I. WAR FOES NOW IN SANCTUARY
The ancient religious tradition of sanctuary is being invoked here by 24 dissident young sevicemen, eight of them Vietnam veterans, who have taken refuge in two churches to protest the war in Vietnam.
The first of the servicemen to seek the symbolic protection of sanctuary was Airman Louis D. Parry of San Jose, Calif., who has been at the Church of the Crossroads since Aug. 7.
The message that the men are seeking to communicate by their action, according to 21-year-0old Airman Parry, is that those opposed to the war “can no longer in good conscience cooperate with the United States military to commit crimes against humanity.”
Another of the protesters, who are staying at both the Church of the Crossroads and the Unitarian Church of Honolulu, is Navy Steward Apprentice Oscar Kelley, 20 years old, of Portland, Ore.
Steward Kelley’s motivation, as the young Negro expressed it, was more personal:
“I was very dissatisfied. I never thought I was a human in the Navy.”
Military officials have made no move to arrest any of the men at the churches, although one of them, Pfc. Vincent Ventimiglia of the Marine Corps. was arrested Wednesday by armed forces policemen as he arrived at a Waikiki hotel to join his parents for dinner.
Deadline on Arrests
Officials said that the police would be asked to make arrests once the men have been absent without leave for 30 days and are classified as deserters.
The City of Honolulu, however, has served notice that the servicemen must vacate the Church of the Crossroads within 10 days.
Edward Hirata, the city building superintendent, said that health and building regulations were being violated by the protesters and their supporters.
The church grounds, on which 44 persons—the servicemen and their supporters—set up housekeeping, are not zoned for dormitory or apartment use and lack suitable bathing facilities, Mr. Harata said.
The chairman of the church’s sanctuary committee refused to comment on the city’s eviction actions, saying there would be a meeting with the servicemen.
Two of the men flew to Hawaii from mainland posts. Eight of them, according to the group, have served in Vietnam.
R3eaction to the protest, according to a Honolulu Star-Bulletin telephone poll, showed 68 percent of those queried disapproved of the churches having offered sanctuary to the dissenters.
The Hawaii department of the American Legion called the action “an act of disloyalty.,” but the Young Republican Club of the University of Hawaii pledged its support to the servicemen’s antiwar protest.
One of the protesters, Seaman Arthur Parker, 17, turned himself in to the authorities at Pearl Harbor yesterday after talking to an Army chaplain.
Seaman Parker denounced the protest as “a movement to overthrow the governments.” Both he and Private Ventimiglia were replaced by later arrivals, keeping the total at 22.
The protest was apparently coordinated by the Resistance, a nationwide antidraft group that first revived the custom of sanctuary as n antiwar tactic in a Boston church in May, 1968.
At week’s end the number of servicemen seeking sanctuary grew to 24, with the latest refugees being Army Private John L. Bolm, 21, of Downy, Calif. and Army Specialist 4 Ronald W. Suppl o,m 20, of Newark. Del.
EXCELLENT! Thank you!
Ping to #8246.
Re. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D15FA3F5D1A7B93C6AB1783D85F4D8685F9
24 G.I. WAR FOES NOW IN SANCTUARY; Servicemen Find Refuge in Two Honolulu Churches
August 24, 1969, Sunday
We have names....woo hoo
*snip*
Ironically, the ‘birther’ movement began in response to Obama’s own efforts to debunk rumors. One year ago this week, the presidential campaign of then-Sen. Barack Obama launched FightTheSmears.com, a web site designed to push back against false rumors about the first African-American presidential nominee.
To push back against rumors that he was not born in Hawaii, the campaign reproduced a Certificate of Live Birth from the state’s Health Department.
Instead of terminating the conspiracy theories, that inspired new theories — that the certificate had been forged or that even if it hadn’t been forged it was the sort of certificate that could be given to someone born outside of the United States. But the certificate is specific about Obama’s birth in Honolulu, down to the 7:24 p.m. time.
“It’s crazy,” said Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health. “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”
Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama ‘Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories.
“If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.
But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”
The urban legend has become too pervasive for Republicans to avoid. In February, Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) introduced a much-mocked bill that would require presidential campaigns to provide “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate.”
While Posey initially said that he disbelieved conspiracy theories about the president’s birth, he told the host of an Internet radio show that he’d discussed the possibility of Obama being removed from office over “the eligibility issue” with “high-ranking members of our Judiciary Committee.”
As of July 15, nine fellow Republican members of Congress were backing the bill. While Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) has said that he supports the bill because he didn’t know whether Obama was a citizen, other sponsors say that they weighed in to pour cold water on the conspiracy theories.
“It’s a good idea,” said John Donnelly, a spokesman for Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who became one of the bill’s co-sponsors this month. “If candidates provided that information to the Federal Election Commission you wouldn’t have all this hullaballoo. You don’t want to needlessly expose presidents to crazy conspiracy theories.”
At the state level, “birther” conspiracy theorists have made headway in getting Republican lawmakers interested in legislation like Posey’s. At least four Republican members of Missouri’s state legislature have looked into introducing a similar bill.
State Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-Okla.) who is running for governor of Oklahoma in 2010, said that he’d co-sponsor birth certificate legislation if it made it out of the state senate and would “definitely” sign the bill if he won the governorship.
“You bet I’d sign it,” said Brodgon. “I know I’d have no problem showing my birth certificate.”
The Republicans who appear to be willing to listen to “birthers,” even to debunk them, have to walk a tightrope. In April, freshman Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) held a town hall meeting at her old high school in Cheyenne, Wyo., and got a question about the president’s citizenship.
Lummis challenged the skeptic to “please send” evidence that the president was not a natural-born citizen. “I’m not questioning your concern,” Lummis said. “I am questioning whether there is credible evidence.” In early July, a small group of “birthers” walked the halls of Congress handing “grand jury presentments” over to the confused front desk assistants of members of Congress; the activists rushed online to report the latest member who had been “handed” the information.
After “birthers” provided some of their papers to Michael Schwartz, the chief of staff to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), they rushed online to report that Schwartz had been won over to the cause and was about to get in touch with Orly Taitz, a California lawyer who has filed several unsuccessful challenges to the president’s citizenship.
“It is possible to mistake politeness for agreement,” Schwartz told TWI, “and I make every effort to be polite.” He did have a “brief conversation with Dr. Taitz,” but challenged the way online “birthers” had hyped their contact with Coburn’s office. “An observer would not report it quite like this,” said Schwartz.
Taitz’s lawsuits and the pressure of conservative talkers like Limbaugh have made it increasingly difficult for Republicans to avoid the “birthers.” On June 16, after Limbaugh joked about the president’s citizenship, WorldNetDaily editor-in-chief Joseph Farah appeared on the Web-based Recharge Radio to thank the host for spreading the “birther” message.
“What that did is beyond Rush’s impact,” said Farah. “It also gives other talk show hosts license to talk about this issue … Rush is kind of the standard of talk show hosts. A lot of people emulate what he does. He crossed the Rubicon on that show, and I’m very proud of him for doing it.”
Farah’s instincts have been borne out by conservative media. This week, Taitz represented Maj. Stefan F. Cook, a reservist who volunteered for duty in Afghanistan, then demanded to be released from the commitment unless the president proved that he was a U.S. citizen.
“I did not volunteer with the intent of becoming a conscientious objector,” Cook told TWI in an email. On Wednesday Cook’s deployment was cancelled, and a spokesman for Centcom took issue with Taitz’s claim, made in a WorldNetDaily story, that this decision verified conspiracy theories about the president’s birth.
Later that night, Sean Hannity cited the story on his Fox News show and used Taitz’s version of the facts, not Centcom’s.
“Major Cook and his lawyer expressed joy at this outcome,” said Hannity. “And they took it as an admission on the part of the military that the president is not in fact a legitimate citizen by birth.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam
~~~
IS THIS TRUE ?
““If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”
IS THIS TRUE ?
““If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”
______________
That caught my attention too. I have never seen that before and I doubt the authenticity. When was this supposedly said? Now I am seriously doubting if he ever even got a copy from Hawaii and I think they faked the whole thing.
From another article: (Janice Okubo is all over the place on this issue..so not credible)
“Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us “to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
And there you have it. Okubo can’t “even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents” because she is not allowed access to Barack Obama’s personal records. State law prohibits it.”
Found this here googling her name:
That's not the only reason why she cannot identify it. She knows darn well that a paper COLB has two sides and both are necessary to identify a paper COLB as valid. She made a point of saying that Hawaii does not issue electronic birth certificates.
I was in my local County Recorder's office the other day, ordering documents, and saw the process firsthand.
Clerk gets the record request from a customer.
Clerk takes the request to the microfiche machine or files and looks for the record.
Clerk calls the record image up.
Clerk inserts the special colored certificate paper (with borders, etc.) into the laser printer.
Print is made.
Clerk stamps the certificate.
Clerk embosses the certificate.
Clerk gives the certificate (in an envelope, I guess) to the customer.
All done.
And now she(or someone else) is saying that all Hawaii does is issue electronic birth certificates? We need to put the two comments up side by side. I know I read it somewhere but can’t find it now.
Now, that’s the way to make a birth certificate copy — not that bullsh*t COLB transcript.
Here's what Okubo told WND in their June 7, 2009 article, Obama's 'birth certificate' not acceptable in Hawaii?"[My comments are in brackets]
Here's an article I found in my searches online. It appeared in the May 24, 2008 issue of HAWAIIAN FILIPINO CHRONLICLE (Hawaii's #1 Filipino Newspaper). It appeared in a section called IMMIGRATION GUIDE, written by Attorney Emmanuel Samonte Tipon. Tipon's firm specializes on bringing illegitimate children to America, and has written the following guide on the subject:
"10 COMMANDMENTS ON HOW TO BRING YOUR ILLEGITIMATE CHILD TO AMERICA"
www.ImmigrationServicesUSA.com
A person wrote in and asked, "When people pretend to be married, even though they are single, by telling the Civil Registrar that they are married when reporting the birth of their love child, are there immigration consequences?"
Tipton's response was as follows:
A Certificate of Live Birth indicating, on the line ‘DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF PARENTS,” a particular date and place of marriage of the parents, although they are not married, is a misrepresentation.
Most of the folks who do this give the excuse that it was to hide the shame of begetting an illegitimate child. Others say that the Civil Registrar will not register the birth of an illegitimate child carrying the father’s name.
Sure he will, if the illegitimate parents execute an “Affidavit of Acknowledgment” on the back of the Certificate of Live Birth. A travel agency prepared petitions for a petitioner’s 5 illegitimate children.
They obviously did not bother to read the children’s Certificate of Live Birth containing an entry that was not true, namely a particular date and place of marriage of the child’s parents. USCIS sent petitioner a Request for Evidence (RFE) asking for the marriage certificate of the child’s petitioning father and the child's mother.
The petitioner could not comply because he was never married. The petitions were denied. He was advised by the travel agency to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. He did. But BIA dismissed the appeal because there was no basis for it since he did not submit the marriage certificate. He wasted money for the filing fees and the preparer's fees.
In another petition prepared by the same travel agency, the petitioner told them that the child was illegitimate and that the statement in the child’s Certificate of live Birth contained a false entry in the line “Date and Place of Marriage of Parents.” The travel agent told him not to worry about it. They filed the petition. USCIS sent him an RFE to submit the marriage certificate of the child’s father and mother. He could not.
If these folks had come to us before filing their petitions we would have told them to read the Certificate of Live Birth to be sure everything is correct. If the line “Date and Place of Marriage of Parents” contains a particular date and place which is not true because the parents were never married, the petitioner should hire a lawyer in the Philippines to file a petition in the Regional Trial Court for correction of an error in the birth certificate. (If you do not know of an honest and competent lawyer in the Philippines, contact me and I will refer you to one).
The petitioner should also obtain from the Civil Registrar a “Certificate of No Marriage” (CENOMAR) of the petitioner and the child's mother. It should be attached to the Petition for correction of error. The parents should execute affidavits stating that they have never been married to each other. The Petitioner should ask for an order directing the Civil Registrar to correct the Certificate of Live Birth by striking out the false statement in the line “Date and Place of Marriage of Parents” and writing in its stead “Not Married”.
The Decision should be registered with the Civil Registrar, Then the father can file a petition for his illegitimate child. He should attach a copy of the Decision and the corrected Certificate of Live Birth.
Patrick Leahy claims that the Obama/Dunham marriage is irrelevant. I think it is absolutely relevant, given what I read here.
““If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”
ONLY FOR THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, AKA THE LONG-FORM. The COLB will say "Hawaii" regardless of where the child was originally born. We've covered this point, ad infinitum.
Polarik has proved that the COLB (or COLBs, since there were at lest two different versions) that appeared on the Internet were never issued by the state of Hawaii. They are merely forgeries and not very skillful ones at that.
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.