Posted on 03/29/2009 6:02:38 AM PDT by AJ in NYC
The Hawai’i Intermediate Court of Appeals is being asked to expedite an appeal seeking release of Barack Obama’s original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate. Andy Martin says scholars have a right to access historic documents of the American presidency. The Hawai’i Attorney General opposes release. Martin will convene a National Conference on Barack Obama’s Missing Birth Certificate, in Washington April 3-4. See www.NationalConferenceOnObama.blogspot.com
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI’I
ICA DOCKET NUMBER: 29643
ANDY MARTIN,
Appellant,
HON. LINDA LINGLE, in her official capacity as Governor; DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Health,
Appellees.
MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL
1. Although appellant is proceeding pro se and is not an expert in Hawai’i appellate procedure, he does have considerable experience with appellate tribunals. The instant appeal poses an important question of national public policy and historical inquiry: should Hawai’i officials be required to make available for biographical research and scholarly inquiry the original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate of President Barack Obama? 2. Appellant has written one book on Barack Obama, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, which is (or should be) part of the record on appeal, has conducted extensive original research in Hawai’i and is preparing to author a second book on the president. Appellant in sponsoring a national conference on missing records involving the president, www.NationalConferenceonObama.blogspot.com. 3. With all due respect to the district Judge, it is difficult to see how a basic historical record, the original “ribbon” copy of the birth certificate of the President of the United States, can or should be concealed from scholarly inquiry or the American people. 4. Appellant has been in contact with the Hawai’i Attorney General and that office opposes expediting this appeal, see attached. 5. Because there is a time lag between filing in this Court and Appellant receiving Notice, he does not know if the record on appeal has been filed yet. In any event, the record is due to be filed or has been filed. 6. This appeal represents review of a straightforward question of law. There was a single hearing in the district court; on information and belief there were and are no disputed questions of fact. CONCLUSION Most respectfully, Appellant asks this Court consider the historical significance of this litigation, and to enter an order setting an expedited briefing and argument schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify I have served opposing counsel as follows:
Jill T. Nagamine, Esq., Deputy Attorney General 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 via Fax (808) 587-3077
on March 28, 2009.
ANDY MARTIN
Just as long as they don’t cram me in the boot of the motorcar and allow me to keep my trousers on, I’ll be ok.
You’re OK in my book...
All in all just another crack in the wall...
“Hawai’i. Wow. That is just so trendy and cool.”
How rude. “Hawai’i” is correct; it’s how it’s always been spelled in HAWAI’I. Sheesh.
This will be moot in 2012/2016 hopefully.....
Ewwwwww!!!
Soon the wall will be uninsurable.
Used to be, but not any more. First it was because of "identity theft" and then just "privacy". Strangely Divorce filings, which one would think might contain much more "private" information than the simple facts of one's birth, are still public records.
That's all well known already. Also it would not make him ineligible to the Office of President. Being born outside the US would.
That goes to citizenship, not natual born citizenship. Besides, it's incorrect. The "only one citizen parent resident in the US for at least one year" criteria only applies to persons born in outlying possessions of the US (like American Somoa)(8 USC 1401(e)) or to someone whose other parent is a US National, but not a citizen (ie. a Samoan) (8 USC 1401(d)).
For a person with one US Citizen parent, and one alien parent, born outside the US and it's outlying possessions (8 USC 1401(g)) the criteria is now "physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:" (Where time spent outside the US working for the US government, including military, or as a minor child of such a person, counts as "resident in the US)
For referance: 8 USC 1401
That might or might not matter. Biden is presumably eligible to the office, and was voted for separately by the members of the electoral college.
I understand what you are saying though. Those electors were selected because they were on the Obama-Biden slate, essentially because they were pledged to Obama, with Biden just going along for the ride. The Courts might see it differently though.
While title 8 of the code was changed in 2007, section 1401 was not, and has not been changed since either.
But even if it had been, as it was after Obama was born, the changes would not apply to him.
On top of all that, those statues refer to citizens at birth, which may or may not be the same as a "natural born" citizen, as that term is used in the Constitution. Constitutional terms mean, absent amendments changing their meaning, what they meant when the Constitution, or an amendment to it, was passed. One party to that contract, the Federal Government, cannot unilaterally change the meaning of its terms. "Natural born citizen" must mean today what it meant in 1789, at least for purposes of the Constitutional criteria.
The BC issue is moot since they changed the US code in 2007. It now says the child of a single mother is a US citizen as long as the mother is a US citizen had been in the US for one year.
But that law is not retroactive to cover births in 1961.
Ur rong!!!
Teh soopreem langwaj iz teh langwaj ov ta intertubes!!!!
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now now null, how can you get any pudding if ya don’t eat ya meat??
Null, I’m starting to think we are either soulmates or seperated at birth. ;o)
That's true, but only if a person has parents who are married. A child born outside of wedlock only has one legal parent, so § 1409 applies. [Please see post #50]
While I might agree that it has to do with citizenship and not natural born status, I submit that Congress will not acknowledge the difference.
For that matter, not one branch of the federal government has any authority over the subject of citizenship....only the provision that they make immigration 'regular'.
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.