Main Menu

Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY

Snowball's chance in hell

Snowball's chance in hell

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr.,
v.
Barack Hussein Obama II, President Elect of the United States of America, President of the United States of America, and Individually; United States of America; United States Congress; United States Senate; United States House of Representatives; Richard B. Cheney, President of the Senate, Presiding Officer of Joint Session of Congress, Vice President of the United States and Individually; and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Individually,

Did you know that “on November 4, 2008, Obama defeated John McCain in the general election with 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173″. That’s what the lawsuit says. Not quite sure why, though. It’s inclusion does raise the fact to fantasy ratio quite a bit.

He even trots out the ambassador tape and cites as authority WorldNetDaily. I’d take the Wikipedia over WND any day. It has the fake foreign registration in Hawaii thing.

Oh lookie! “Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time.” Attorney Mario Apuzzo, you better pray no court reads this or at the very least you’ll have a very bad day.

You can read Kerchner v. Obama here on Obama Conspiracy Theories.

You know, I really hate answering these crappy lawsuits. They insult my intelligence and I’m angry that I have to put up with them. But since this seems to be the suit du jur. The allegations against Obama start at point 32 ((numbers from 2nd Amended Complaint). I’ll quote the lawsuit in italics.

32. Obama has not met his burden or otherwise adequately proving that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America.

The lawsuit does not argue that such a burden exists.

33. Unlike all previous elected Presidents of the United States that were born after 1787, Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America.

No reason given.

34. Obama has not met his burden or otherwise adequately shown that he was born in the Unites States of America.

While there is no such “burden”, the President did offer a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate on the web and to an independent fact checking organization.

35. Obama’s campaign posted the electronic image of a “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) online in June 2008 after numerous questions arose regarding his birth place and citizenship status, but this document is not the best evidence (ENDNOTE 9) and does not sufficiently prove that he was born in Hawaii because at the time of his birth Hawaii granted such documents to parents whose children were born outside the United States. Obama’s spokespeople and lawyers have routinely called a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) a “Birth Certificate” which is a false statement. Rather than producing the original and authentic, long-form, Certificate of Live Birth (BC) in support of any of his motions to dismiss actions filed against him, he has incorrectly asked the courts to take judicial notice of public news reports that are erroneous, misleading, and incomplete as proof that he was born in Hawaii.

Endnote 9. One reason to doubt the online posted Certification of Live Birth’s (COLB’s) validity is that at least two document examiners opine that the digital image and the source documents to make the images were forged. This doubt alone is sufficient to require Obama to produce the original long form birth certificate. Additionally, even the United States Supreme Court warns that electronic orders may contain “computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed versions.” Indeed, the Court does not trust computer-generated documents and requires a follow up of them with its paginated versions in paper print. Furthermore, in cases of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of orders, the print version controls. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html Surely, the plaintiffs are therefore justified in demanding that defendant Obama, the sitting President of the United States, produce for public inspection and examination by expert document examiners the paper version of his original Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate) rather than a questionable digital computer image of a document Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that he and/or his campaign have/has published to the world and upon which he relies to prove that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Somehow the fact that the COLB says “Location of Birth: Honolulu” has gotten lost. The key mistake here is: “at the time of his birth Hawaii granted such documents to parents whose children were born outside the United States.”  That simply is not true, as shown in my article Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Doesn’t Really Say He Was Born in Hawaii. The COLB is prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. While the COLB is computer printed, it is also manually sealed and stamped by the state certifying its accuracy. Courts routinely use certified machine copies all the time.

36. Under Hawaiian law, a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is only prima facie evidence of a birth event and is not a Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate).

The COLB is not a Certificate of Live Birth; it is a certified copy of a Certificate of Live Birth. The COLB is prima facie evidence OF WHAT IT SAYS, namely “Location of Birth: Honolulu”. And the COLB is most definitely a “birth certificate” in every sense of the word. It even says “THIS CERTIFICATE” down at the bottom. It is prima facie evidence of a birth event, for an infant named Barack Hussein Obama II on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

There are over 300 of these freaking points!

37. When we consider the following contradictory evidence, the prima facie quality of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) must fall.

Do tell?

38. The Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence for its Homeland program. From its web site: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

The information that DHHL “utilizes” relates to the parent’s age and their birth place, something irrelevant to the question of where the President was born. One simply cannot get around the fact that the COLB is prima facie evidence OF WHAT IT SAYS, namely “Location of Birth: Honolulu”. [Update: the DHHL web site now points out that the COLB is accepted, and that the state no longer issues the old photocopy Certificates of Live Birth.]

39. The Certification of Live Birth (COLB) does not provide the name of the hospital where the birth occurred, the name of the doctor or other person assisting in the birth, or other independently verifiable contemporaneous facts, all of which are vital corroborating evidence as to where a birth has taken place.

The COLB is prima facie evidence. Any attorney knows that needs no corroborating evidence. There is no requirement for independently verifiable contemporaneous facts. This was 47 years ago. Those folks may well be dead, and if not why would they remember an obscure birth almost five decades ago?

40. The Hawaiian law that existed in 1961 when Obama was born (Chapter 338-178 Hawaiian Statues which applied for all births prior to 1972), which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii, was lax in terms of assuring the integrity of the documents and did not adequately safeguard against fraud in the process.

This is a total misstatement of the law, which reads in full:

[§338-17.8]  Certificates for children born out of State. (a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

Note the “L 1982″ which means the law was passed in 1982 (not “existed in 1961″), 21 years after Obama’s birth was registered. Do you see anything about “prior to 1972″ there?

41. On October 31, 2008, Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino made a public statement that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance  with state policies and procedures.” But this statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian law, policies, and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii or the United States.

Hawaiian law prohibits the disclosure of information from a Birth Certificate. The statement by Dr. Fukino is therefore the most that could legally be said. However, the fact that the Director chose to say anything at all is extraordinary, and clearly consistent with Obama’s being born in Hawaii (and not with his being born anywhere else). As shown in the article Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Doesn’t Really Say He Was Born in Hawaii it is not possible for Obama to have been born elsewhere and registered in Hawaii in 1961, and even if foreign registrations had existed in 1961, the birth certificate says Barack Obama was born in “Honolulu” and contrary to what some people say, Honolulu is in the United States, not Kenya. [Update: Dr. Fukino has since issued a statement unambiguously stating that President Obama was born in Hawaii.]

42. The document image posted on the internet is a scan of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) document that can be easily manipulated and changed using modern computer software technology. The public and independent document examiners have not been allowed by Obama to see, handle, or examine the source paper document, the COLB.

The staff of FactCheck.org, an independent public  organization were allowed to view and take close-up photographs of the COLB.

43. The last two document examiners opine that the digital image and the source paper documents COLB used to make the images were forged. This doubt alone is sufficient to require Obama to produce the original, long form, Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate).

Oh, and who might those two document examiners be? You don’t even know who they are, and whether they are “document examiners”. I’m sure the judge will explain to you that this is not admissible.

44. Obama’s Kenyan paternal step-grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, “a very intelligent and educated citizen of Africa, a former teacher and respected evangelist throughout Africa” (October 27, 2008 Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae), on October 16, 2008 stated twice to the repeated question that she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya, per Affidavits of Bishop Ron McRae and of Rev. Kweli Shuhubia (actual name withheld for safety reasons) filed in the legal action by Philip J. Berg v. Barack Hussein Obama et al., Fed. Cir. D.PA., Civil No: 08-cv-04083. According to Kweli Shuhubia’s affidavit, upon being pressured by family members who were present during the interview, she changed her statement and then said Obama was born in Hawaii. The step-grandmother never recanted that she was present during Obama’s birth and neither Obama’s grandmother nor anyone else present during the interview could explain how the step-grandmother could be present during Obama’s birth if he was born in Hawaii.

How can there be an affidavit when the testimony is not sworn, and how can it be sworn under an assumed name? There is no “affidavit”, only an anonymous claim.  This is discussed here in the article: Obama’s Grandmother says he was born… but the short of it is that the Berg transcript is edited to say something other than the original tape says (full version at the preceding link). An independent transcript of the tape shows that it clearly says Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. And I think we are entitled to ask whether Kweli Shuhubia “signed” the affidavit with a fake name out of fears for his safety or fears of a perjury conviction. YouTube videos of Obama’s uncle state that Obama was in Kenya for the first time as an adult.

45. Following Kweli Shuhubia’s interview with Obama’s step-grandmother, he traveled to Mombasa, Kenya to the hospital where Obama was born. He then states in his affidavit: “I interviewed personnel at the hospital in which Senator Obama was born in Kenya. I then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Registrar. I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa [sic], Kenya on August 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret.”

An affidavit by someone with a fake name is not evidence. And why is the registrar’s name not given? Very suspicious. Given that Barack Obama was registered in Hawaii on August 8, an August 4 birth date in Kenya is barely credible.

Do you see a pattern emerging here? Document examiner won’t give a real name. Kenyan “bishop” won’t give a real name.

46. The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, acknowledged on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talkshow hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In the Morning,” when specifically asked about “President-Elect Obama[‘s]” birth place that he was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a “well-known” attraction. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index. php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82031. The Ambassador later said that he believed that the interviewers were asking him about Obama’s father and not the son.

This is a joke right?

Ogego’s assistant insisted he was speaking about Barack Obama Sr., and not President-elect Obama.

WND asked, “Is Obama’s birthplace in Kenya?”

The woman replied firmly, “No.”

47. Obama’s half sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, and Obama have made conflicting statements concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born. She says he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii but Senator Obama in his biography posted on Wikipedia says he was born in Queens Hospital in Hawaii.

There is no biography by Senator Obama on the Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama says:

Barack Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States

48. There is no Hawaiian hospital that has verified and confirmed that baby Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama’s alleged birth in Honolulu.

The Privacy Rule pursuiant to the Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act of 1996 precludes hospitals and health professionals from releasing such information. [Update: However, at the 100 Anniversary celebration of the Kapi'olani Hospital, Congressman Abercrombie of Hawaii read a latter from President Obama declaring that he was born there.] [Update: the Wikipedia article now says Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital (the former name for Kapi'olani), which just goes to show how useless the Wikipedia is as evidence. Any fool can change the Wikipedia.]

49. Attorney Philip Berg has served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned by Obama and his half sister as the place where Obama was born to obtain the medical records which would show the fact of Obama being born in either one of them but Obama has refused to sign the consent that the hospitals need to release the documents.

There is no evidence anyone asked Obama to sign release forms, nor any evidence such medical records still exist after 47 years.

50. Not a single person has come forward, not a doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, nor any one else who may have been a witness to Obama’s alleged Hawaii birth.

It was unremarkable birth 47 years ago. A report that Dr. Rodney West commented on Obama’s birth appeared in the Buffalo News. Dr. West died last year at age 98.

51. For reasons known only to him and relying on state privacy laws, Obama has refused to publicly release his original Certificate of Live Birth (BC) even though in his book, Dreams from My Father, he stated that he has it.

Obama released a certified copy of his birth certificate in June 2008, which is prima facie evidence that he was born in Honolulu.

52. Fightthesmears.com, Factcheck.org, and Snopes.com have not provided any credible and sufficient corroborating evidence on the birth place issue after the questionable COLB was posted on the internet and discredited by at least two digital image and document examiners.

Internet should be capitalized. FactCheck.org sent staff to physically examine and photograph the COLB. (See Factcheck.Org – Born in the USA.) The two examiners are fictional characters. One (techdude) stole his published credentials from a real person, and most Obama critics have disowned him. The other Roland Polarik published altered images in order to “prove” forgery. Polarik too is a fictional person. Both examiners are shown to be frauds by: Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis and Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II.

53. Obama has refused all efforts to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records, Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of the original, long form, Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate), Harvard Law Review articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama’s travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any;

First, no competent authority has asked for ANY of these documents, so exactly who has Obama refused them to? Second, what relevenace is all of this to the question of Obama’s birthplace?

54. Obama stated publicly in San Francisco to a group of voters in 2008 that he traveled to Pakistan and we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using an U.S. passport.

The travel ban to Pakistan is a bald-faced lie, first told, as far as I know by Janet Porter in an article published by a right-wing propaganda web site, WorldNetDaily. This is proved both by contemporary newspaper reports of travelers to Pakistan, and an official State Department memo about obtaining visas (in 1981 the year of the travel). See: Barack Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport (updated).

55. Obama has used various other names in the past, one of which is Barry Soetoro and there is no known evidence that he did any legal name change to Barack Obama.

There is no evidence of a legal name change to Barry Soetoro.

56. Other than a lone and questionable newspaper birth announcement, there does not exist one known corroborating document of any kind showing that Obama was born in Hawaii.

There were TWO birth announcements, and neither is “questionable”. And there is also an official Hawaiian birth certification that says “Location of Birth: Honolulu”.

That July posting contained a photocopy of what is most likely the first mention of Barack Obama ever published –” a tiny, one-line birth notice in the Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961, edition of The Honolulu Advertiser:

“Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.”

The exact same notice appeared the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers, which were unaffiliated, competing publications.

Honolulu Advertiser

57. Obama has remained silent and has not declared publicly after his COLB was put into question that he was born in Hawaii.

He’s busy being president. Seriously, why would he say something after presenting evidence good enough for any court in the country?

58. It has been reported through various media channels that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama’s Kenyan records. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174

WorldNetDaily is a far right propaganda channel, not a media channel. See article Public Enemy Number One for some of WorldNetDaily’s lies.

Did I say there were 300 of these things? :!:

59. No member of the media, political party, the Executive Branch of Government, Congress, other political institution, Judiciary, or law enforcement entity has publicly stated that he or she has any independently verifiable and credible source documents that show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Barack Obama provided a certified copy of his birth certification which is prima facie evidence that he was born in Honolulu.

Location of Birth

Location of Birth

60. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson publicly stated during the 2008 campaign that Obama was an “immigrant.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo.

Another joke? It was obviously a figure of speech. And how would Bill Richardson be an authority on where Barack Obama was born?

61. Despite all the law suits that have been filed against Obama, he continues to refuse to release his original, long form, Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate) and has opted instead to spend large sums of money using lawyers to defend himself and to cause the courts and litigants to expend large amounts of time and resources pursuing litigation against him and other third parties. He relies on procedural and other threshold arguments such as jurisdiction, justiciability, standing, political question, separation of powers, mootness, and ripeness rather than simply produce his original Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate) and make a motion for summary judgment with prejudice as to the merits so that no other future cases can be brought against him and others on that issue which would then put an end not only to the ongoing drain of money, time, and other resources but also to the great public outrage that continues to brew regarding his birth place controversy.

It is the plaintiffs and attorneys who are wasting the public resources with meritless lawsuits, like this one.

Notably, courts throughout the nation have dismissed similar suits filed by others. See, e.g., Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709, 713 (Conn. 2008) (dismissing case regarding Obama for lack of statutory standing and subject matter
jurisdiction); Stamper v. United States, 2008 WL 4838073, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4,2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for lack of jurisdiction); Roy v. Fed. Election, 2008 WL 4921263, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14,2008)
(dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for failure to state a claim); Marquis v. Reed, No. 08-2-34955 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. Oct. 27, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71
(D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain on standing grounds); In re John McCain’s Ineligibility to be 011 Presidential Primary Ballot in P., 944 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2008); Lightfoot v. Bowen, Case No. S 168690 (Cal. Dec. 5, 2008) (Original Proceeding) (denying Petition for Writ of Mandate/Prohibition and Stay regarding Obama); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain for lack of standing and lack of a state court remedy); Constitution Party v. Lingle, 2008 WL 5125984, at * I (Haw. Dec. 5, 2008) (unpublished) (dismissing election contest challenging Obama’s Nov. 4, 2008 victory); Martin v. Lingle, No. 08-1-2147 (Haw. Oct. 22, 2008) (Original Proceeding) (rejecting original writ petition regarding Obama on several grounds); Cohen v. Obama, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11,2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama on standing grounds); Donofrio v. Wells (N.J. 2008) (Motion No. AM-0153-08T2 before the N.J. App. Div.).

62. This Himalayan mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall.

You can add zero to zero all day long and it still come out zero.

Following points are repetitions. I will have mercy on myself on on the reader by skipping ahead except for mentioning one endnote.

12. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country” (applies to adopted children). A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its Case system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” Additionally, at the bottom of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB), it states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented and in such case the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence. To date, Obama has presented no additional evidence other than the internet image of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) regarding where he was born. Hence, the prima facie validity of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) must fail and Obama should be compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of where he was born.

First, Obama is under no compulsion to provide any document in the first place. The rest are citations of Hawaiian law are misstatements, typically of laws that didn’t exist in 1961 when Obama was registered. This garbage is dealt with in my article Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Doesn’t Really Say He Was Born in Hawaii.

Section 71 picks up with the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen because his daddy was a Brit. Sounds like a good time to break this into another article, Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY, Part 2.

Print Friendly

, , , , ,

48 Responses to Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY

  1. avatar
    mimi January 27, 2009 at 10:31 pm #

    Kerchner enlisted in Reserves in 1962. And, they’re using the “if he gets called to serve, he needs to know if the president is for real” line? For real, he thinks he’ll be called up? At what age?
    Lowell Patterson filed suit before. (He was one of numerous Plaintiffs) Filed against the Sec. of the State of NJ regarding filing deadlines in New Jersey elections.
    http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/179/179.F3d.64.98-5256.html
    No matter. This (Kerchner, et. al.) suit is filled with the same stuff as all the others. Even though most of their claims have been debunked online. (i.e. Travel not allowed to Pakistan, etc.)
    But, Mario will get his 15 minutes.

  2. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 31, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    Isn’t there still an issue of standing? It seems very doubtful to me that any enlisted person would have legal standing to use the civil courts to challenge the capacity of superior officers, including the Commander in Chief, to give orders. If so, what would it do to military discipline? And if the issue is the constitutionality of the Presiden’ts status, then what would prevent any enlistee from going to court to challenge the consitutionality of the last Presiden’ts war?

  3. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    Actually, there was a lawsuit filed on Bush and Clinton. I know Clinton’s was dismissed and Bush’s was in 2003, wasn’t by active military but by military families. Will find it and post it.

  4. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200303/05/eng20030305_112754.shtml

    Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Wednesday, March 05, 2003

    US Military Families, Congressmen Sue Bush for War Against Iraq

    “She urged the international community, including the UN Security Council, to take notice that the President of the United States is using “unconstitutional” means if he launches an unprovoked war in Iraq.”

    “A similar lawsuit filed against Bush’s father before the last Gulf War by 54 members of the Congress was rejected by a federal judge in 1990. “

  5. avatar
    mtngoat61 February 20, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    Hello Dr. Conspiracy and others,

    What is your take on the Kerchner v Obama case and Plaintiffs suing Congress for unconstitutional inaction in response to petitions and letters from 100s of thousands of people and Congress not taking any action about that between December 15th, 2008 and January 8th, 2009 and for Congress’s unconstitutional and illegal acts on 8 Jan 2009? If you have not read the whole 2nd Amended Complaint, and all the dozen or so counts therein against the various defendants, here is a link. What’s your comment on the lawsuit and counts and charges against Congress?

    Link to 2nd Amended Complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

    M Publius Goat
    http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2009 at 8:59 pm #

    Hi Goat, I recognize you from over at Apuzzo’s place. You really should take a look at our The Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages while you’re here. Check out Lynch v. Clarke on that page. Sorry about the moderation delay; the site spam filter thought you were spam for some reason (normally it just gets drugs, porn and gambling).

    Not being a lawyer myself (maybe some of those here who are might jump in), I don’t have the background to comment authoritatively on the standing of Kerchner or of the legal requirements on the government he alleges. I don’t think that there is any obligation on the part of a member of Congress to do something because he gets some letters (can you document the 100′s of thousands, by the way?) It would seem that since Kerchner’s “harm” is remotely theoretical, he probably doesn’t have standing. And if he did have standing, the court couldn’t give him any relief since Obama is president and cannot be removed except by impeachment.

    Quo warranto, in any case, in the federal courts is not available to private individuals. That wipes out the usefulness of all the allegations against Obama.

    I know of no official that failed to do anything they were required by law to do, so the writ of mandamus seems not to make sense, although I haven’t read that part carefully.

    I see the Kerchner suit as having two parts, the one just mentioned, and an Obama eligibility smear. As to the second part, I am an expert, and it is a compilation of lies, rumors and fallacies. This whole web site is full of iron-clad refutation of many points in the lawsuit.

    I have no idea why Kerchner v. Obama exists, but I can assure you, it’s not a real lawsuit (meaning one that has any chance of prevailing).

    I have no objection to the concept of a more formal vetting of future candidates for president and vice-president. I’d have to see it before I endorsed any particular proposal, of course. But this election cycle is over.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2009 at 11:52 pm #

    MAJOR REVISIONS MADE to this article.

  8. avatar
    bogus info February 21, 2009 at 6:32 am #

    Did you note the major revisions? I don’t see them.

  9. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 21, 2009 at 8:19 am #

    Our system of government is founded on something called “separation of powers”. It means that the courts can’t tell Congress how to do their job, or make Congress take any actions or refrain from any actions…. except for the narrow range of stuff that is actually mandated by the constitution.

    For example, Article I, Section 2 says, “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker”. So if Congress refused to name a Speaker… I suppose a federal court could compel them to meet and elect a Speaker — but the court couldn’t tell them who to choose.

    Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to do anything at all in response to letters and petitions it receives.

    The clear remedy if you are dissatisfied with your congress member is not to vote for him or her in the next election.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2009 at 8:38 am #

    The bottom 2/3 of the article was added.

  11. avatar
    Jim Buzzell May 21, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    You are obviously a Obama supporter and NOT a constitutionist by any stretch of the imagination. It is very simple, McCain did it, and all Obama has to do is do the same thing; produce his long form birth certificate. With the amount of money he has spent from his campaign coffers to keep this document sealed indicates to me that he has much to hide. There is no excuse for not producing his long form birth certificate.

    I also would direct your attention to the following:

    I would like your answers to the following questions:

    Questions about Obama’s concealed past:

    Question:
    1. Where was Obama physically born?
    2. Was his birth father Kenyan, or British Subject at the time of his birth?
    3. Who has seen Obama’s long form birth certificate from Hawaii, which he claims is available, but refuses to release?
    4. Why is Obama’s long form hospital birth certificate sealed?
    5. Why is Obama’s birth records sealed in Kenya “for national security reasons”? If he was not born in Kenya there would be no record to seal?
    6. Why is his Selective Service Registration Form appear to be backdated, and corrupted?
    7. Did Obama receive a Security Clearance vetting by the National Security Agency and the FBI, which is required by all persons to be privileged to national security information? If not, why was he exempt?
    8. What level of US Security Clearance does Obama possess today?
    9. Has Obama and his handlers conspired against the United States Government, by concealment of his vital recorders, to win nomination for president and ultimately win the election to the office of the presidency?
    10. Did Obama receive a Fullbright Scholarship at Occidental College as a foreign student at the ages of 18-20 years of age as Barry Soetoro?
    11. How was Obama able to travel to Pakistan in 1981 as an American citizen; when the US State Department restricted travel to that country because the instability of Pakistan at that time?
    12. Did Obama travel to Pakistan as an Indonesian?
    Does anyone have plausible answers to these questions since Obama has spent millions of dollar on attorney’s fees since October 2008 to keep his records sealed and unavailable to even the United States government agencies?

    Why the cover up?

    What is Obama hiding in his sealed past?

    McCain ponied up his long form birth certificate when asked!

  12. avatar
    NBC May 21, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    1. Where was Obama physically born?

    Honolulu

    2. Was his birth father Kenyan, or British Subject at the time of his birth?

    Yes

    3. Who has seen Obama’s long form birth certificate from Hawaii, which he claims is available, but refuses to release?

    Noone but Obama and the officials.

    4. Why is Obama’s long form hospital birth certificate sealed?

    Hawaiian Privacy Laws. Not just Obama’s, anyone’s BC is sealed.

    5. Why is Obama’s birth records sealed in Kenya “for national security reasons”? If he was not born in Kenya there would be no record to seal?

    No evidence of such birth records exist.

    6. Why is his Selective Service Registration Form appear to be backdated, and corrupted?

    It isn’t. Surely you must be familiar with the facts?

    7. Did Obama receive a Security Clearance vetting by the National Security Agency and the FBI, which is required by all persons to be privileged to national security information? If not, why was he exempt?

    Likely.

    9. Has Obama and his handlers conspired against the United States Government, by concealment of his vital recorders, to win nomination for president and ultimately win the election to the office of the presidency?

    No evidence exists

    10. Did Obama receive a Fullbright Scholarship at Occidental College as a foreign student at the ages of 18-20 years of age as Barry Soetoro?

    Nope.

    11. How was Obama able to travel to Pakistan in 1981 as an American citizen; when the US State Department restricted travel to that country because the instability of Pakistan at that time?

    Because there was no restriction only an advisory.

    12. Did Obama travel to Pakistan as an Indonesian?

    Nope

    Sad to see how poorly informed you are.

  13. avatar
    Jim Buzzell May 21, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    As an authority on Obama how can you verify the answers made here? You must have inside information not available to the rest of us.

  14. avatar
    NBC May 21, 2009 at 8:14 pm #

    Any examples? The fact that you cannot find it does not mean that it is not available to you. I have found that some people lack the ability to do independent research.

  15. avatar
    Jim Buzzell May 21, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    Independant research requires the ability to see documents; since Obama continues to conceal his records, one can only assume he is not who he pretends to be.

  16. avatar
    NBC May 21, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    Since he has provided access to his COLB which shows him born in Honolulu Hawaii, why should he provide more records, records which are protected (not concealed) by state and federal privacy laws.

    I guess you may have a different concept of independent research perhaps?

  17. avatar
    NBC May 21, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    And perhaps you can identify some statements you believe you cannot independently verify?
    Deal?

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    It is not technically accurate to say that Obama’s birth records are “sealed” in Hawaii, as that term is reserved for a special class of birth records, such as those for adoptees. Sealed records have special action taken to make them sealed. Barack Obama’s birth record is not sealed, as stated by the head of the Hawaii Department of Health. Hawaii is a “closed record state” and birth records there are not public information, and Hawaiian law prevents their public disclosure.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    There are links in the article to sources, or links to other articles with sources. You might also click on the Bookmarks link (top of page) for the sources I use. It’s all public information.

  20. avatar
    Jim Buzzell May 29, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    Since you agree Obama’s was a Kenyan and British Subject; the we can at least agree on the following.

    At best, if proven by verifiable documentation, Obama/Soetoro could only be a US citizen; never a “natural born citizen” as defined in the United States Constitution, since his mother, if a US citizen, could only bestow upon her son US citizenship because his father was a citizen of Kenya and a United Kingom subject. To be a “Natural Born Citizen” both parents, at birth, must be US citizens, they need not be married to each other, and owe no other allegence. Check the constitution and become further educated.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    No, we cannot agree on that because the words “parent” do not appear in the Constitution, and there is no authority, no law, no court decision, and no historical foundation for the belief that the Constitution intended for natural born citizens to have citizen parents. It’s just not there.

    See, for example, http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

    You know, Obama is up there sleeping in the White House, flying around on Air Force One, appointing people to the Cabinet, signing laws, telling the Army where to send people, and even about to name a Supreme Court Justice. He really looks like the president to me! Now to suggest that this fellow isn’t eligible to be president is a really remarkable claim. You’d better have some really strong evidence for your pet theory of natural born citizenship or else you’re wasting your time. You say “check the Constitution” but really it seems to me that you’re the one who ought to do some Constitution checking, because it appears to me that you are under a misapprehension as to what it says.

    By the way, if you think McCain made his birth certificate public, that just shows you how faulty your factual basis is.

  22. avatar
    Jim Buzzell May 29, 2009 at 7:49 pm #

    NBC is no authority, sorry. Let’s see the facts.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    No, but I am an authority on vital records. For starters, you could look at the fact of Hawaiian law here:

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

  24. avatar
    jtx June 26, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    NBC:

    As just a single example, how about his signed, notarized statement that he is a “natural born citizen”.

    No one – including you – can verify that and it will eventually end up before SCOTUS.

  25. avatar
    jtx June 26, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    Sorry Doc:

    You’re wrong and that will eventually be shown in court. There is considerable evidence that shows 2 US citizen parents and born on US soil … and no evidence to the contrary despite what the O-borter flacks claim. That will come out in court also.

  26. avatar
    jtx June 26, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    Doc:

    Can you spell “usurper”??? How about “despot”???

    Didn’t think so!!!

  27. avatar
    HistorianDude June 26, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    Independant research requires the ability to see documents; since Obama continues to conceal his records, one can only assume he is not who he pretends to be.

    Is that really the only thing than somebody can assume here? I for one am grateful that your personally inability to come up with more than one option is not the standard by which the real world proceeds.

    It must be a very boring universe for the imagination impaired.

  28. avatar
    HistorianDude June 26, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    The COLB verifies it.

  29. avatar
    HistorianDude June 26, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    Where?

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    I can spell ‘em, but I never had occasion to use ‘em. Slander is against my religion.

  31. avatar
    HistorianDude June 26, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    To be a “Natural Born Citizen” both parents, at birth, must be US citizens, they need not be married to each other, and owe no other allegence. Check the constitution and become further educated.

    Okay. I just checked the Constitution again. None of this can be found anywhere within it.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    jtx, it had better come out at court, because it surely hasn’t come out your mouth.

    Considerable evidence? Bah. You got nothing except bluster and bluster gets you nothing on this forum.

  33. avatar
    Neill Arnhart June 30, 2009 at 4:20 am #

    I am a conservative who wants to defeat President Obama’s agenda right now, and to defeat him completely in the next election.

    However, I want to beat him with the truth, and valid arguments, and not with tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theories. To this end, I have tried get my fellow conservatives to abandon the birth certificate issue in favor of issues we can really win.

    One of the ways that they come back at me is with the question “Why is he spending (fill in the blank) dollars trying to keep it supressed?”

    I point out that I can find no evidence that he spent ten cents on this issue. I have found evidence that he, and/or his campaign have large sums of money to law firms, but it always seemed to be legit legal expenses relating to campaigns dealing with 50 states worth of election laws.

    Every other argument that they have, I can disprove. The money argument is one that I can’t. I don’t want to say, “you can’t prove it”. I want to say, “here is proof that what you say is false”.

    Can you help me out with this???

    Thanks,
    Neill

  34. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 30, 2009 at 5:58 am #

    Neill, Obama’s lawyers have taken a very streamlined, minimalist approach toward responding to these cases. Yes, they have “fought” the cases by filing motions to dismiss from the outset –but any lawyer who failed to file a motion would be guilty of gross incompetence. The impact of getting a case decided on a dismissal motion is that it SAVES money — the stuff that runs up the most expense in a civil action is discovery (depositions) and any trial involving testimony and witnesses.

    If you count the pages of paper that have actually been filed by Obama, you can project out the costs to something in the low thousands… that is, you can see evidence of maybe 20-30 hours of legal work put in, all told, in all the cases.

    One thing that many of the birthers don’t understand is that in MOST of the cases, Obama has not had to do anything at all. For example, there have been at least half a dozen or more attempts to get various cases heard by the US Supreme Court —yet Obama has never filed any papers or taken any action there. He has only paid lawyers to take action in cases where he was REQUIRED to do so by the courts.

    There is no choice: when you are sued, you need to file a response. The cheapest, most efficient way to go is to move for dismissal on the ground that even if everything in the complaint were true, the court does not have jurisidiction. That’s what Obama did in the handful of cases where he actually was represented by private counsel.

    I’d suggest going over to the “Docket” section and pulling up the paperwork done by Obama’s lawyers.

  35. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 30, 2009 at 6:25 am #

    Here’s an example of what I am talking about — you can find the docket in Berg v. Obama, which was the first case brought, here:
    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/

    There are 32 entries on the docket, but only 3 that are filed on behalf of Obama. The first is a Motion to Dismiss that has only 6 pages of legal argument (item #12); the second is a motion to halt discover pending the determination of the dismissal motion, with 4 pages of legal argument (item #15); and the final filing is a 2nd motion to dismiss (item #20), which was necessary because Berg filed an amended complaint after the 1st dismissal motion was filed –and that has only 4 pages of legal argument.

    When the judge threw out the case, based on the dismissal motions, it took the judge 33 pages to explain his legal reasoning — (see item #28) — I don’t know what better evidence I can show you to demonstrate how sparing Obama’s lawyers were in their approach.

    Now I’m sure your birther friends will try to say that Obama could have put it all to rest simply by producing his long-form birth certificate — but if your read the complaints in that case you will see that is not true. The complaints are full of arguments that Obama lost his citizenship by going to Indonesia and being adopted by his stepfather — none of which has any legal validity whatsoever — but if Obama hadn’t moved to dismiss at the outset, then Berg would have run up all sorts of expenses with discovery, asking for every document about Obama’s childhood schooling, deposing Obama about his relationship with his stepfather, etc. All you have to do is read the complaint in that case to see what it was really about.

    The real goal of these lawyers all along has been to try to get a court case going that would enable them to get discovery of everything in Obama’s life history — his Indonesian school records, his college transcripts — whatever. They are just hoping that if they can go on a fishing expedition they might discover something embarrassing.

    I think Obama’s view of the best and most efficient way to handle these things is illustrated pretty clearly here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORZ00OyKp0I

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 30, 2009 at 7:38 am #

    The very fact that the claims range from 200,000 to $2.5 million in legal fees should tell you something: they are all made up numbers.

  37. avatar
    Joehorn July 2, 2009 at 11:38 pm #

    MINOR v. HAPPERSETT
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162

    OCTOBER, 1874, Term

    CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    The Supreme Court has never delivered a ruling that settled the doubt of having a child born in the US, (Yes I believe that if they ever see the vaulted birth certficate they will find he is born in Hawaii.) and one or two parents who are not citizens. Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling or they amend the Consitution, it is an open question.

    What is sad is that I think you know it, and you don’t care.

  38. avatar
    Joehorn July 2, 2009 at 11:41 pm #

    If you can tell me of a case or any law that definatively settles this question, I will gladly attack the birthers on their websites because I’ve seen them all. (I must confess I think this concentration on the birth certficate is a little misdirection from the legal question of whether or not he is a natural born citizen becasue of his father.) You don’t have to spoon feed me, I am an Attorney and can read a case. I just cannot find one that settles this in Obama’s favor.

  39. avatar
    Bob July 3, 2009 at 1:10 am #

    Asked and answered.

    Next.

  40. avatar
    Bob July 3, 2009 at 1:16 am #

    Has the good counselor read Wong Kim Ark?

  41. avatar
    NBC July 3, 2009 at 1:21 am #

    See also this website

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    Salient quotes

    he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624, 116 U. S. 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274.

    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 88 U. S. 167.

    In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

    “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” 124 U.S. 124 U. S. 478.

    Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

    Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

    “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

    “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. “

    Other cases

    Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).

    Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

    Combine the findings that NBC has to be interpreted in light of English Common Law and the fact that English Common Law defines anyone born on English soil to be a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of the parents and the conclusions seem inevitable.

  42. avatar
    NBC July 3, 2009 at 1:22 am #

    Excellent suggestion, also later than the Minor ruling…

  43. avatar
    NBC July 3, 2009 at 1:24 am #

    Or perhaps we do care and are more familiar with the issues of law?
    Minor v Happersett settles nothing, but in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) SCOTUS did address the meaning of natural born citizen

  44. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 3, 2009 at 1:53 am #

    JoeHorn…. you claim to be an attorney. Didn’t it occur to you to shepardize Minor v. Happersett?

  45. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 3, 2009 at 2:37 am #

    Joe Horn, a couple of things.

    1. Minor paragraph was addressing 2 things. It was actually addressing whether or not Minor was actually a citizen. Notice how Natural-Born is only mentioned once. Every other time, it’s “Citizen”. It’s quite obvious that the court determined that a citizen at birth was the same as a Natural-Born Citizen. It said that it wasn’t neccessary to determine which one it was, since Minor falls under both definitions. So, it didn’t address it.

    2. Minor directly acknowledged that English Natural Law is what the Founders based their definition on. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark went further into this, seeing that the way that the English defined natural-born was someone who was born under them at the time of their birth. They also acknowledged that there was no difference between a person born to 2 citizen parents, a person born to 1 citizen parent, and a person born to 2 foreigners. Those are simple facts.

    Before quoting the Minor Decision, actually read the entire thing.

    Especially this part of it.

    Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

    Notice how it says that citizens may be born, or they may be created by naturalization. Notice how there is only two classes of citizens. Minor doesn’t actually state what you think it states.

  46. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 3, 2009 at 2:47 am #

    And the so-called doubts that you have as to whether the children of non-citizens, if they’re born in this country, are citizens. It’s clear that U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark settles that dispute.

    That was a U.S. Citizen being born to 2 non-citizens as a U.S. Citizen. Any doubts that the Minor court might have had would have been resolved with the binding precedent of Kim Wong Ark.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 3, 2009 at 7:24 am #

    Joehorn: “What is sad is that I think you know it, and you don’t care.”

    What is sad is that someone stops with the one case and doesn’t care to read any other.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

  48. avatar
    Rita July 3, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    Perhaps JoeHorn needs to watch these videos?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuPnwXRLgaI
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDF9EH9H3go&feature=related