Skip to comments.More Delays. USA/Obama Say They Need 124-Days to Answer; Congress 117 Days (re: Kerchner v Obama)
Posted on 04/28/2009 12:02:24 PM PDT by rxsid
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
More Delays. USA/Obama Say They Need 124-Days to Answer; Congress 117 Days
See the copy of the court documents electronically filed by the defendants on Monday, April 27, 2009:
The lawyer for USA and Obama, Elizabeth A. Pascal, who works in the office of Ralph J. Marra, Acting United States Attorney, is now asking the Court a second time through her motion for more time to answer for the defendants.
Initially, Ms. Pascal only represented the USA and Obama, whose answers or motions were initially due on April 27, 2009. Ms. Pascal requested and obtained an extension to file her responses to May 5, 2009.
Now Ms. Pascal states in her declaration that former Vice President Cheney, the House of Representatives, and Speaker Pelosi have asked that the Department of Justice represent them in the action. She adds that the Justice Department is also deciding which Congressional defendants (meaning Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) it will represent. Pending the Justice Department making that decision, she is moving the Court for an order allowing all the Congressional defendants more time to answer or otherwise move. She includes in her request additional time for the USA and Obama to answer, whose answers are now due on May 5, 2009.
Ms. Pascal made her motion returnable June 1, 2009 and is asking for an order that she be allowed to file an answer or otherwise move within 20 days of the date of the order to be entered by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. This means that if Magistrate Judge Schneider signs the extension order on June 1, 2009, the defendants' answers or motions will be due by June 21, 2009.
Whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for the Office he currently occupies is of utmost national importance. Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer. This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable. As to the Congressional defendants, a twenty-day extension for them to answer is reasonable, making their answer due by May 18, 2009. Given the national importance of the issues, an extension for all defendants to answer by June 21, 2009 is not acceptable.
And yet they have no problem with jumping on our necks and shoving socialism down our throats within days of taking power.
So..... what? Is there a judge who’s going to call them on it?
I mean, show evidence in 60 days or vacate the White House?
Hmmm.... probably not.
Ping (Kerchner v Obama)
Why is Cheney involved?
Delay tactics...nothing to hide here I’m sure....
Don’t mess with Cheney. No wonder the rats are after him.
Because he was presiding over the E.C. vote “certification”, and he didn’t call for any objections.
Just curious- when Obama took his current job, didn’t he have to fill out some government forms like we all do?
What GS grade is president?
Aren’t you required to present tow valid ID’s? Birth certificate, social security card?
Nope. Which is why the question(s) remains. A lot of assumptions where made.
So procedure wasn’t followed. Has Cheney left a back door open? (or did he just screw up?)
If you watch the event, Pelosi stepped all over his presiding by immediately starting an uproarious cheer before Cheney could say anything at the moment when he was supposed to ask if there were objection.
Yes, yes, and yes, which is why the Birther movement has been written off by the likes of Limbaugh and Malkin and Coulter and the like. There has never been a thing to this other than hysteric innuendo, and it shames conservatism to be even tangentially connected to this stuff.
On that form he has to present two forms of “Approved” ID.
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that he has asked the DOJ to represent him regarding this lawsuit. Maybe that's "protocol" as then...he was VP and the DOJ would probably normally represent him in that capacity. Now that he's a "private" citizen....not sure.
That was my thought. Why is Cheney involved?
It might take that long to make a highly passable forgery.
No kidding huh!
He was born with, and continues to have British citizenship. No hysteria there.
If you don't care to defend the Constitution, don't make fun of those that do.
You're more like a 'spectator' than a citizen.
And no Congress Critter spoke up exept the guy from Ohio who raised his hand possibly in objection to Obama.
The question is: What is on that Vault Birth Certificate that is so controversial that lawyers must be engaged to fight lawsuits demanding its release"
Your referring to his Kenyan citizenship. That's what his campaign and the falsecheck web site noted (that he, allegedly, lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 21).
However, as Mario points out...there is no record of Barry renouncing his British citizenship. Furthermore, the British Nationality Acts didn't "remove" his British citizenship, neither did the Kenyan Constitution.
A good explanation from Mario, on why Barry is still a British citizen, can be found here:
However, your right about the fact that Barry continues to fight the release of a copy of his long form vault b.c., as well as his college records (among others as well). It’s becoming clearer, that he is clearly not (and never has been...going back to At Birth) a “Natural Born Citizen.” Ironically, what he is hiding in his college records and original long form b.c. may determine weather or not he is even here legally. If he were truly born in Kenya, his mother was too young to convey citizenship (read citizenship and not NBC) to him. If he were truly born in HI, he would be a ‘citizen’ with dual U.S. and British citizenship. Not NBC.
The question I have is why he doesn’t show us the one he found among his mother’s belongings?
They need the time to let the forged long-form age under the UV lamps.
He does not continue to have British citizenship. Please don’t resort to lying to support an already tenuous conspiracy.
The burden of proof is on you, Birther-boy.
LOL. Nice one Uslurpler-boy. It’s fun being juvenile again...isn’t it?
Found that evidence yet of where he renounced his British Citizenship he’s had since birth?
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.