This one actually is Helen Tanseys, filed in Virginia.
The jig is up for Barry Soetoro, its just a matter of time.
Posted on 07/02/2010 1:23:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell J. LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. (hereafter "Appellants") filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that President Barack Obama is ineligible to hold his Office as President. They rely on Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution which provides that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. ..." U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Appellants challenge the District Court’s order dismissing their complaint. We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.
(snip)
Turning to the argument of Kerchner and Nelsen that their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution “increase[ ] their adversarial posture,” Appellants’ Br. at 56, no court has found that a plaintiff established “injury in fact” simply because s/he had once taken such an oath. Carving out an exception on that basis would still leave an impermissibly large class with unique ability to sue in federal court. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 502(a) (requiring all military personnel to take an oath “swear[ing] . . . [to] support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”). Kerchner’s assertion of standing on the ground that he, who has been retired from the Naval Reserves since 1995, may be required to serve the Commander in Chief as a combatant in the case of an “extreme national emergency,” Kerchner, 669 F.Supp.2d at 483 (quotation and citation omitted), is to no avail because it is conjectural.
(...)
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
There was no change in the DNC presidential certification forms used in 2008 for Obama. The 2000-Gore and 2004-Kerry certification forms are exactly the same as the 2008-Obama form, right down to the misspelled word.
The 2008 DNC certification form submitted to Hawaii included an affirmation that Obama and Biden met the Constitutional qualifications for the office of POTUS because Hawaii election law required that affirmation to be in the document submitted to them declaring the Party's presidential and vice presidential nominees.
And I never said this issue is or should be strictly a political question. In fact, if you read my post #23, you'd know that I believe the Courts should provide a "forum of last resort" for The People to be heard and obtain a remedy when their elected officials fail or refuse to act on a political question that isn't in their best interest.
So what is next? Appeal to the SCOTUS
The continued “standing” dance around the central issue that is so simple to resolve.
Not really. The term does not mean the voters have suffered no harm, but that they would all suffer the SAME harm. If everyone in the US suffers the same harm from the same cause, then the redress is via elections, Congress, etc - not the Courts.
That is why the complainants argued they were specially harmed as former military subject to recall - but the courts ruled that was a speculative & hypothetical harm...and again, courts do not address potential future harm.
For example, I once took a guy to court for the work he did - well, claimed he did but did not do - on my septic system. The lawyer advised me to first get it repaired, and then the harm was the cost of my repair. Until then, the lawyer said, I had no basis for a case, since I had suffered no specific harm.
Remember, I’m not a lawyer and I could be screwing up what the courts are doing...it is just my take on their actions.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives certainly has her detractors but she hasn’t met the tenacity of Helen Tansey yet. Tansey attempted to address the SBE on October 5 prior to their mandatory appearance in federal court at 11:00 AM. The board could only give her one minute. They had less than 15 minutes until court.
Tansey said she needed at least 5 minutes to present her remarks on a complaint she had hand-delivered to the SBE eight weeks earlier. She had also sent the same to Bill Mims, Virginia Attorney General. She complained that she had received no response from either party.
The complaint charged that Pelosi committed election fraud during the 2008 General Election when she certified that President Obama was a United States citizen and qualified to run for the office of President.
Jean Cunningham, Chair explained to an insistent Tansey that she could return on October 9 when they would assemble for another SBE meeting. On October 9 Tansey returned and read a three-page prepared statement.
Nancy Rodrigues, Secretary for the SBE said Monday that they had no authority in the matter and that Ms. Tansey correctly sent her complaint to the attorney general. Rodrigues said that it is not uncommon for public citizens to address the SBE being a public body. Those that do are “passionate” said Rodrigues.
Tansey who several years ago had worked as a lobbyist for Virginia Forever, a nature conservancy organization was is a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter during the presidential primary. She donated $2500 to Clinton’s campaign.
In a phone call to her Richmond home Monday Tansey still echoed a twang of resentment over the democratic primary results that favored then Senator Barrack Obama. Tansey chose unemployment for a year so she could spent time researching state and federal election law and testimony. She concluded that “election fraud had been committed here in Virginia.”
She stressed that it was an individual effort on her part that began on May 31, 2008. As an “extremely dedicated Hillary Clinton supporter” she watched the DNC rules and by-laws committee give Obama half the Clinton votes of Florida and Michigan. She was “sure something was up.”
This set Tansey on her mission to pay closer attention. The floor vote at the Democratic convention was stopped abruptly to give Obama the nomination. This only served to further her passion. She still refers to herself as a “Hillary Democrat.” Her quest began to unravel what she perceived as a failure of the DNC to follow their own rules and by-laws. “She was appaled” at the DNC’s actions and eventually struck up a relationship with an attorney on a blog who was also a Hillary supporter.
Both the attorney and Tansey concluded that election fraud had been violated. No Hawiian official had ever come out publicly and stated that Obama’s COLB (certificate of live birth) was real. “They danced around the issue,” said Tansey. She contends that Pelosi deliberately ignored Obama’s ineligability for the Democratic nomination. On August 28 Pelosi in spite of the questionable COLB and one birth announcement certified him anyway, claims Tansey.
“My party, the Democratic Party did something that was wrong and put forth a candidate that in their own by-laws stipulates that every presidential and vice-presidential candidate must meet constitutional guidelines. They put forth a candidate that was questionable,” said Tansey. To this day there has been nothing produced to change her perception.
“What did they base his eligibility on?” The question still haunts her. She continues to maintain that – “my candidate, Hillary Clinton was the rightful winner of the primary and the rightful winner of the Democratic National election.” She feels “her party did something illegally” and claims she can prove it.
Tansey was pleased to have her remarks on record at the SBE.
http://www.roanokefreepress.com/?p=7028
This one actually is Helen Tanseys, filed in Virginia.
The jig is up for Barry Soetoro, its just a matter of time.
It depends on what the meaning of the word "acknowledges" is. I am not a lawyer.
See definition of acknowledge:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/acknowledge
Description of acknowledge - American Heritage® Dictionary
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1a. To admit the existence, reality, or truth of. b. To recognize as being valid or having force or power.
Additional references: Law.com law dictionary
In my reading the use of the word “acknowledges” by the District Court is an assertion that the frustration of the Plaintiffs is valid, which is a form of agreement.
The District Court and the 3rd Circuit could have simply “recognized” the frustration of the Plaintiff, but they went beyond mere recognition to acknowledgment, a carefully chosen and much stronger, affirming word.
Once again, the 3rd Circuit in Kerchner referring to the Berg District Court:
“Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
Id. at 483 n.5. We agree.”
When the 3rd Circuit said “We agree.” it was agreeing to all of the foregoing ruling including the acknowledgment (validity) of the frustration specifically with “what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area” (the claims that Obama’s NBC status has not been established). The 3rd Circuit could have omitted the acknowledgment of the frustration from their agreement, but they didn't.
This makes the District Court that ruled on Berg, the 3rd Circuit Appeals panel that upheld Berg and now the 3rd Circuit Panel in Kerchner all BIRTHERS.
They are birthers to the extent that they acknowledge (consider valid) the Plaintiff's frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area (failure to clarify Obama’s constitutional NBC status).
I meant filed in “Georgia” not Virginia
Whats even more interesting is that Obama has asked that the courts take judicial notice of the fraudulent BC placed on his web site, also a cause for disbarment because his attornys cannot help but know its fraudulent.Tansey points this out.
*****************************
Helen Tansey
October 20th, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Valerie – thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding my testimony of election fraud before the State Board of Elections. I wanted to be sure that your readers had the opportunity to read the testimony and the Memorandum of Complaint. Please note, citizens have filed Memorandum of Complaints in TX, VA, GA, SC, and HI to date. As more states are identified more citizen complaints to their A’sG will be filed.
The following is the testimony I provided to the SBE:
Good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the Board of Elections,
My name is Helen Tansey and I am a long time resident of this great Commonwealth of Virginia. I sincerely thank you for this opportunity to provide citizen testimony to the Board. I will keep my remarks brief.
I am here today seeking a response to the complaint I delivered to the Board almost 3 (three) weeks ago, charging that during the 2008 general election, The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, 2008 DNC Convention, committed election fraud by Certifying to this Board that Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, was Constitutionally eligible for the job so that you would place his name on our general election ballot, even though based on documents in the public record she could not have ascertained whether Mr. Obama was eligible for the job.
Let me explain how I came to file this complaint.
I followed the 2008 primary very closely. At some point, I began hearing rumors concerning whether Barack Obama was a natural born citizen. Evidently, these rumors reached the candidate, too. Because in June 2008, he created a web site called “Fight the Smears” for the express purpose of ‘getting out the truth.’ On the web site, he posted a photocopy of a heavily redacted image of a document entitled, “Certification of Live Birth,” indicating he was born in Hawaii. He now proclaimed this image proved he was a “native” of the U.S.A.
But having taught Constitutional law, surely he knows, the Constitution requires him to be a “natural born citizen.” Besides, how did we know whether this document was even real? Well, it seems the candidate was one step ahead of us.
In case we didn’t take his word, he said we could just ask Annenberg Political Fact Check; he even provided a link from his site to theirs. He assured us, Annenberg was an “independent group.”
No, they’re not. Annenberg is the same group that had hired him to run their Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Not surprisingly, Annenberg rubber stamped Mr. Obama’s claims: ‘We have seen the original Certification of Live Birth and we find this proves he was “born in the U.S.A.”
Why would I believe them?
Then, in August 2008, without even a roll call vote on the floor of the DNC Convention, Chairwoman Pelosi Certified Barack Obama had been “duly nominated” as the Democratic candidate for President, and submitted this Official DNC Certification of Nomination to this Board. And you added his name to our general election ballot.
Now, as you know, Virginia law requires that only the names of eligible candidates may appear on our ballots. Plus, the law requires the major political parties to determine candidate eligibility. DNC rules also say, the nominee must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, it only makes sense that when you received that Certification from Ms. Pelosi, you assumed Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen.
But based on the documentation available in the public record – an image of a document redacted so as to prevent further investigation, posted on a web site paid for by the candidate, and verified as real by his former employer – I had to wonder:
HOW ON EARTH DID NANCY PELOSI VERIFY THIS MAN WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB? Then, 4 (four) months AFTER she signed this Certification, something happened that made me believe, she didn’t.
In January 2009, Barack Obama was the Defendant in a civil suit brought in federal district court, in which Plaintiffs tried to get to the heart of his Presidential eligibility status. Mr. Obama, through his attorneys, submitted a Motion to Dismiss based on procedural issues like standing and jurisdiction. But they also inserted into the Motion this odd footnote.
Mr. Obama asked the judge not only to dismiss the case but also to take judicial notice of the ‘fact,’ Annenberg Political Fact Check said, they had seen the original Certification of Live Birth, a copy of which is posted on his web site; and it is real.
Think about that. Four months earlier, when Chairwoman Pelosi signed that Certification of Nomination, the best evidence she could have that he was even a citizen, was that photocopied redacted image posted on the internet, which Annenberg said only proved, he was born in the U.S.A.
But in January 2009, the best evidence to establish, Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen, was that Certification of Nomination signed by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession, which was submitted to elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, who, based on this document, printed his name on their general election ballots.
With all of the gravitas of THIS document, why on earth didn’t he ask the federal judge to take judicial notice of THIS?
Well, I have to tell you, since Mr. Obama determined that document was not good enough for the federal court then, I decided, it’s not good enough for my Board of Elections.
In a state like VA, with a law that says, the candidate must be eligible to appear on the ballot; swearing he is eligible without first ascertaining whether he is, is election fraud. And based on these facts I just presented, as well as others I did not present due to time constraints but which facts are in my written complaint, I believe Nancy Pelosi committed election fraud here.
Therefore, I respectfully request that you refer this complaint to the Attorney General so that he can commence a formal investigation.
Thank you.
****************************************
http://www.roanokefreepress.com/?p=7028
Good job in breaking down the court “opinion”.
see #54
Kerchner did, however, do an excellent job with his newspaper ads in the Washington Times articulating for the highly sensitive the DC area audience Obama’s NBC eligibility shortcomings.
Patients. We already knew about the predilection of the courts. I fully expect that this process will take awhile for the courts to finally acknowledge who would qualify as a natural born citizen under Article 2, Section 1 once they find their balls.
The U.S. Constitution states that only the legislative branch of government, the Congress, has the power to remove a President from office. Impeachment is the most obvious method.
However, Congress has delegated the power to remove a usurper from the Presidency, via Quo Warranto, to the District Court of Washington, D.C. The interesting aspect of Quo Warranto is that the President would have to prove he/she is eligible to be President.
All other Judicial avenues are ineffectual.
Please comment on whether it may be possible to sue the Supreme Court for not doing their job.
Are they the only branch of government that cannot be held accountable for shirking their responsibility that would not rise to the level of impeachment?
Justice Clarence Thomas testified under oath that they were “avoiding” the issue of who is eligible to be President.
Who would hear the case—you take it to federal court. The publicity alone may bring atention to the issue.
If a guy that may die if ordered to go to war doesn’t have standing, I don’t know who does. If that is not a particular injury, I don’t know what is.
Perhaps the estate of a fallen soldier may have standing??
There are still a lot of people who do not realize Factcheck’s direct involvement in producing a forged Certification of Live Birth
Look for it to be much later and when he is gone so will be the United States of America. It will only be a land mass with the inhabitants struggling to survive from day to day.
This makes the District Court that ruled on Berg, the 3rd Circuit Appeals panel that upheld Berg and now the 3rd Circuit Panel in Kerchner all BIRTHERS.
Thanks for pointing this out --
You’re grasping. And you sound like Bill Clinton. “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” Really?
The District Court acknowledges the existence of the Plaintiffs’ frustration not the validity of it. The DC clarifies their definition of “acknowledges” when they say the Plaintiffs’ frustration is “perceived.”
“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs? frustration with what they perceive as Congress? inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.”
“This court affirmed the order dismissing the suit, agreeing that ‘a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.’”
I believe you are right. May they all live long enough to vomit those words back up.
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.